Court Opinion

ID: 9657078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:12:39.275765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:40.593819
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
{dissenting). I cannot agree with my colleagues.
Petitioner was sentenced for armed robbery. The violation of the parole with which he was charged was unlawful possession of a handgun.
Assuming arguendo that his explanation that he stumbled upon the pistol in the store is true in fact, he picked it up at his peril. I agree with the argument advanced by the Attorney General that when he saw it, his duty was to shun it like the plague at all costs. I can see a possible reason for a parolee having a handgun if he wrested it from an assailant, or participated in preventing an illegal act by another. Other than this, his admitted possession of the weapon is analogous to the class of crimes which are malum, prohibitum. The reason for having the gun is not to the point. He had it. It was not forced upon him. As the state contended on oral presentation, if he did see it on the floor of the store he should have left it there, advised the management of that fact, or “called a cop”.
*192As far as the due process argument is concerned, I know of no case precedent that denies an alleged parole violator the right to admit his violation. The majority concedes that petitioner was advised of his right to counsel and was advised of his right to an adjournment. He chose to proceed. He admitted his unlawful possession of the handgun. He gave his explanation. The parole hoard was unconvinced. Where is the denial of due process? How does this offend against cited Vaughnl Vaughn was a contested hearing. The alleged violations were denied. I wrote to the point in Vaughn that under these circumstances proof of the denied violations could not he supplied by hearsay and compounded hearsay, and I designated the whole proceeding as “shocking”. I do not retreat an inch from that position. But I do not read Vaughn to mean that a parolee who has been offered all his constitutional and statutory prerogatives and protections, and non-coercively and understandingly waives them, is on reconsideration entitled to a new full-dress hearing.
I would affirm the parole hoard.