Court Opinion

ID: 9442236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:41:01.733032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:01.525557
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The opinion of the court seems to be inaccurate in stating that no member of the present Parole Board was such when the paroles were granted, Member Monkiewicz appearing to have continued as such throughout; and in stating that each prisoner was given written notice at the time of his arrest of the charges of parole violation made against him, the fact being that the written charges were formulated then, and it not appearing when they were made known to the prisoners. Each knew them on Sept. 2, 1948, six days before the hearing before the Board, and each alleged them fully in the applications then filed for habeas corpus. These inaccuracies are immaterial to the decision made.
Since neither judge who concurred in the judgment desires a rehearing, the motion therefor in the above named and numbered case is denied.