Court Opinion

ID: 9705073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:55:51.910599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.732802
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
At oral argument the state conceded that because petitioner was once again in confinement in the state penitentiary and subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Pardons and Paroles the appeal was not moot. There has been no suggestion by the state since oral argument that petitioner is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
Under the rules governing paroles adopted by the Board of Pardons and Paroles it is provided that:
“(11) In considering the question of the release of an individual, some of the factors considered by the Board shall be:
[[Image here]]
(E) Revocation of previous probations and-or paroles granted to the inmate.”
This rule dearly makes the matter of his prior parole revocation of vital, practical and immediate concern to petitioner, for as long as he is in custody he may very well suffer adverse consequences as a result of the revocation. Accordingly, I would hold that petitioner’s claim is not moot.
I am authorized to state that Justice PORTER joins in this dissent.