Fisher v. Crist

No. 14312

I N THE S P E E C O W O THE S A E OF M%JTANA
UR W F T T

1979

AIBEXF KENNE;TH FISHER,

Petitioner,

-VS-

KlQR CRIST,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PFacEmING:

Counsel of Record:

For Petitioner:

Gregory J. Skakles, Anaconda, Mntana
A l b e r t Kenneth Fisher, Pro Se, D e e r Lodge, Mntana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana
Nick Rotering, Helena, Mntana
Ted Mizner , County Attorney, D e e r I d g e , Mntana

Submitted: April 30, 1979

Filed:
M&; ' : 1979 Decided :
'KAY 2 2 1 9 x
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.

P e t i t i o n e r , A l b e r t Kenneth F i s h e r , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r

w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s i n t h i s C o u r t on May 1 7 , 1978. We

a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t him and s u b s e q u e n t l y s t a y e d

t h e proceedings i n t h i s Court pending a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g

i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , P o w e l l

County. The h e a r i n g was h e l d on December 7 , 1978, b e f o r e

t h e Honorable R o b e r t J. Boyd, and r e s u l t e d i n a n o r d e r d a t e d

J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1979, g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t ' s m o t i o n t o q u a s h and

dismiss the petition. The o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e d t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law.

P e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n amended p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s

c o r p u s i n t h i s C o u r t on A p r i l 6, 1979. A response t o t h e

amended p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d A p r i l 30, 1979, by a S p e c i a l

A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r t h e Department o f I n s t i t u -

tions. Because t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n was f i l e d some t i m e

a g o , p e t i t i o n e r w a s e x c u s e d from c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s

C o u r t ' s r e c e n t l y adopted requirements with r e s p e c t t o habeas

corpus r e l i e f .

On J u l y 9, 1974, p e t i t i o n e r was s e n t e n c e d t o s e r v e t e n

y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n a f t e r p l e a d i n g g u i l t y i n

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , G r a n i t e County, t o t h e o f f e n s e o f b u r -

glary. On May 1 3 , 1976, p e t i t i o n e r w a s p a r o l e d t o S e a t t l e ,

Washington, p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Uniform A c t

f o r Out-of-State P a r o l e e S u p e r v i s i o n , s e c t i o n s 95-3201

t h r o u g h 95-3202.4, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 46-23-1101

t h r o u g h 46-23-1106 NCA.

I n September 1976 p e t i t i o n e r was a r r e s t e d i n Spokane,

Washington, and c h a r g e d w i t h a f e l o n y . P e t i t i o n e r pleaded

g u i l t y t o "misdemeanor t h e f t t h r e e " a t t h e s u g g e s t i o n o f a
Washington p a r o l e o f f i c e r who a g r e e d t o recommend t o t h e

Montana a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t h e b e c o n t i n u e d o n p a r o l e i n r e t u r n

f o r h i s plea. The recommendation was a p p a r e n t l y a p p r o v e d by

t h e Montana a u t h o r i t i e s . P e t i t i o n e r was r e l e a s e d from t h e

Spokane j a i l o n J a n u a r y 3 , 1977. About s i x weeks a f t e r h i s

r e l e a s e h e began t h e j o u r n e y back t o S e a t t l e b u t was re-

a r r e s t e d a l o n g t h e way i n E l l e n s b u r g , Washington, t h i s t i m e

f o r hitchhiking. H e was r e l e a s e d i n a b o u t a week a n d p r o -

ceeded t o S e a t t l e .

On A p r i l 1 9 , 1 9 7 7 , p e t i t i o n e r ' s Spokane p a r o l e o f f i c e r

i s s u e d a r e p o r t o f v i o l a t i o n which p r e c i p i t a t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s

e v e n t u a l r e t u r n t o Montana. The r e p o r t s p e c i f i e d two v i o -

lations:

" V i o l a t i o n - - 1: F i s h e r v i o l a t e d h i s p a r o l e
No.
by f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t a s i n s t r u c t e d t o t h e Spo-
k a n e D i s t r i c t O f f i c e i n Spokane, Washington
o n 4-12-77.

" V i o l a t i o n - - 2:
No. Fisher violated Special
C o n d i t i o n 1 o f h i s p a r o l e r u l e s by f a i l i n g
t o cooperate f u l l y with t h e S e a t t l e Indian
A l c o h o l i s m Program i n S e a t t l e , Washington
d u r i n g F e b r u a r y a n d March o f 1977."

The r e p o r t was w r i t t e n by t h e same Spokane p a r o l e o f f i c e r

who had recommended F i s h e r ' s c o n t i n u a n c e o n p a r o l e t h e

p r e v i o u s September i n r e t u r n f o r h i s g u i l t y p l e a . H e had

a p p a r e n t l y p e r m i t t e d p e t i t i o n e r t o r e t u r n t o S e a t t l e on t h e

c o n d i t i o n t h a t h e r e p o r t t o him by m a i l a n d p a r t i c i p a t e i n

t h e a l c o h o l program.

F o l l o w i n g t h i s r e p o r t , a w a r r a n t was i s s u e d by t h e

Montana a u t h o r i t i e s , a n d o n May 5 , 1 9 7 7 , p e t i t i o n e r was

arrested i n Seattle. P e t i t i o n e r was n o t g i v e n a p r e l i m i n a r y

o n - s i t e o r p r o b a b l e c a u s e h e a r i n g i n Washington o r else-

where. P e t i t i o n e r was r e t u r n e d t o t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n

o n J u n e 1 6 , 1977, f o l l o w i n g a b r i e f e x t r a d i t i o n p r o c e e d i n g
i n Washington i n which h e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . On
J u n e 30, 1977, t h e Board o f Pardons conducted a p a r o l e

r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g and i s s u e d a d e c i s i o n r e v o k i n g p e t i -

t i o n e r ' s parole. No r e c o r d w a s k e p t of t h e h e a r i n g e x c e p t

f o r a minute e n t r y noting t h e revocation.

A f t e r h i s r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , p e t i t i o n e r was p r o v i d e d

with t h e following four reasons f o r h i s parole revocation:

"Your p a r o l e was revoked b e c a u s e you f a i l e d t o
r e p o r t ; d i d not cooperate with t h e S e a t t l e
I n d i a n Alcohol Program t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y
t e r m i n a t e d you from t h e program ( c o m p l e t i o n of
t h e program w a s a s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e
B o a r d ) ; f a i l e d t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t on w a r r a n t
i s s u e d f o r misdemeanor c h a r g e ; and w e r e con-
v i c t e d of misdemeanor r o b b e r y and w e r e g i v e n
6 months i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l . You w e r e p a s s e d
t o discharge. "

P e t i t i o n e r p r e s e n t s a number o f i s s u e s i n h i s p e t i t i o n ,

b u t w e f i n d one t o b e d i s p o s i t i v e o f t h i s c a s e : whether t h e

f a i l u r e t o provide p e t i t i o n e r with a preliminary, on-site

h e a r i n g v i o l a t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s F o u r t e e n t h Amendment r i g h t t o

due p r o c e s s . W e find t h a t it did.

P e t i t i o n e r a r g u e s t h a t h e was e n t i t l e d t o a p r e l i m i n a r y

o n - s i t e h e a r i n g i n Washington and t h a t a b s e n t such a h e a r i n g

t h e revocation procedure followed i n t h i s c a s e f a i l e d t o

s a t i s f y t h e d i c t a t e s o f M o r r i s s e y v . B r e w e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 408 U . S .

471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 3 3 L.Ed.2d 484, a s w e l l a s t h e a p p l i -

cable statutes. The S t a t e p r e s e n t s two arguments i n t h e

f a c e of t h i s . F i r s t , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t a p a r o l e e may

waive t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o n - s i t e h e a r i n g and t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t found such a w a i v e r . Second, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t

a b s e n t a w a i v e r , p e t i t i o n e r ' s p a r o l e w a s p r o p e r l y revoked

b e c a u s e c o n v i c t i o n o f a new o f f e n s e o b v i a t e d t h e n e c e s s i t y

of a preliminary on-site hearing.
 A d d r e s s i n g t h e w a i v e r argument f i r s t , we n o t e t h a t

s e c t i o n 95-3202.1, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-23-1103 PICA,

provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

"Where s u p e r v i s i o n of a p a r o l e e ... i s being
a d m i n i s t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e i n t e r s t a t e compact
f o r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of p a r o l e e s . . . t h e appro-
p r i a t e judicial o r administrative authorities
i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l n o t i f y t h e compact adminis-
t r a t o r of t h e s e n d i n g s t a t e whenever, i n t h e i r
view, c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o r e t a k i n g
o r re-incarceration f o r a parole .. . violation.
P r i o r t o t h e g i v i n g of any s u c h n o t i f i c a t i o n ,
- h e a r i n g -a l l - - l d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s
a s h - be-he --
a c t w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e , u n l e s s such hear-
- -s waived & t h e p a r o l e e
ing i . . ." (Emphasis
added. )

I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g

f i n d i n g regarding waiver:

"According t o t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e Defendant h e
w a s a f f o r d e d c o u n s e l i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington
f o l l o w i n g h i s a r r e s t and c h a l l e n g e d h i s e x t r a -
dition. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e whether
t h e P e t i t i o n e r o r h i s c o u n s e l a t t h a t t i m e made
any r e q u e s t o r demand f o r a n o n - s i t e h e a r i n g
and i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n s w e r e t o t h e
e x t r a d i t i o n rather than a preliminary revocation
o f p a r o l e h e a r i n g . The ~ o b r t h e r e f o r e f i n d s
and -
------ P e t i t i o n e r waived his
- c o n c l u d e s t h a - t- h- e
-A*- t - - - - -
-
r i ig h t h-m a n -o s -i s t t e h e a r i n g . "
g to - - n n i " (Emphasis a d d e d . )
added. )

A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n

t h e lower c o u r t , w e f i n d no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h i s c o n c l u -

sion. The f a i l u r e t o demand an o n - s i t e h e a r i n g c a n n o t b e

c o n s t r u e d t o be a w a i v e r of t h a t r i g h t n o r can such a w a i v e r

b e presumed t o r e s u l t under t h e s e f a c t s . Absent a n e x p r e s s

w a i v e r a p p e a r i n g i n t h e r e c o r d , we are l e f t w i t h t h e S t a t e ' s

a s s e r t i o n t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s Spokane c o n v i c t i o n was s u f f i -

c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e preliminary hearing requirement. This

i s not so.

I n M o r r i s s e y t h e Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g

w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g :

". . . t h e p a r o l e e should be given n o t i c e t h a t
t h e h e a r i n g w i l l t a k e p l a c e and t h a t i t s pur-
p o s e i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e
 c a u s e t o b e l i e v e h e h a s committed a p a r o l e v i o -
lation. The n o t i c e s h o u l d s t a t e what p a r o l e
v i o l a t i o n s have been a l l e g e d . A t t h e h e a r i n g
t h e p a r o l e e may a p p e a r and speak i n h i s own
b e h a l f ; he may b r i n g l e t t e r s , documents, o r
i n d i v i d u a l s who c a n g i v e r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n
t o t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . On r e q u e s t of t h e
p a r o l e e , a p e r s o n who h a s g i v e n a d v e r s e i n f o r -
mation on which p a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n i s t o be based
i s t o b e made a v a i l a b l e f o r q u e s t i o n i n g i n h i s
p r e s e n c e . However, i f t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r
d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a n i n f o r m a n t would b e sub-
j e c t e d t o r i s k of harm i f h i s i d e n t i t y were
d i s c l o s e d , h e need n o t b e s u b j e c t e d t o c o n f r o n -
t a t i o n and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . " M o r r i s s e y , 408
U.S. a t 486-87, 92 S . C t . a t 2603, 3 3 L.Ed.2d
a t 497-98.

P e t i t i o n e r was n e v e r n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e S t a t e i n t e n d e d t o

r e l y on h i s Spokane c o n v i c t i o n t o r e v o k e h i s p a r o l e . He was

t o l d t h a t he was c h a r g e d w i t h two v i o l a t i o n s , b o t h of which

h e c o n t e s t e d and s h o u l d have been t h e s u b j e c t of a p r o b a b l e

c a u s e h e a r i n g i n S e a t t l e where h e c o u l d have had t h e oppor-

t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t witnesses and, perhaps, r e f u t e t h e a l l e -

gations. With r e s p e c t t o t h e Spokane c o n v i c t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r

had a l r e a d y been excused from t h e r e v o c a t i o n s a n c t i o n f o r

t h a t o f f e n s e on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t h e p l e a d g u i l t y and s e r v e

a s h o r t sentence. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , p e t i t i o n e r ' s p a r o l e

r e v o c a t i o n d i d n o t s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of M o r r i s s e y o r

t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s , and h i s p a r o l e must be r e i n s t a t e d .

The Board of Pardons i s g i v e n t h i r t y d a y s from t h e d a t e

of t h i s d e c i s i o n t o h e l p p e t i t i o n e r d e v e l o p and t o approve a

new p a r o l e p l a n f o r p e t i t i o n e r . I f a p l a n h a s n o t been

approved w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s , p e t i t i o n e r n e v e r t h e l e s s s h a l l

b e r e l e a s e d from p r i s o n a s a p a r o l e e s u b j e c t t o t h e s u p e r -

v i s i o n of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t i e s .
We concur:

4"n4Jm%4
CW/f Justice

QfLQ .% J ,
L -/
Justices