IN RE PAROLE OF STANLEY DUANE FENNER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re PAROLE OF STANLEY DUANE FENNER.
STANLEY DUANE FENNER,
UNPUBLISHED
October 19, 2004
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 247273
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000970-AA
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Smolenski and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Petitioner sought leave to appeal denial of parole in the Ingham Circuit Court under MCL
600.631. Respondent Parole Board moved for dismissal on the grounds that the court lacked
jurisdiction to hear the appeal under MCL 600.631. We granted leave to appeal and now affirm
the trial court’s dismissal.
Though petitioner acknowledges that the 1999 amendments to the Department of
Corrections act, MCL 791.201 et seq., eliminate an inmate’s right to appeal a Parole Board
decision by limiting such appeals to prosecutors and victims,1 petitioner argues that the right to
appeal remains under the provision of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.101 et seq.,
allowing generally for appeals to the circuit court from decisions of administrative agencies or
officers, MCL 600.631, under which his complaint was filed. We disagree.
This Court has recently addressed the issue presented by petitioner in Morales v Parole
Bd, 260 Mich App 29; 676 NW2d 221, lv den 470 Mich 885 (2003). Therein, the Court clearly
held that parole decisions are not reviewable by the courts under the Department of Corrections
act, MCL 791.201 et seq., Administrative Procedures Act , MCL 24.201 et seq., or the RJA. Id.,
34-40.
1
MCL 791.234 as amended by 1999 PA 191.
-1-
Our court rules mandate that we must follow the rule of law established by a prior
published decision of this Court issued after November 1, 1990. MCR 7.215(J)(1); Wiley v
Henry Ford Cottage Hosp, 257 Mich App 488, 509; 668 NW2d 402 (2003). Morales considered
and rejected the primary arguments petitioner raises here.
Petitioner further contends that the circuit court erred in denying him oral argument.
However, petitioner did nothing to preserve this issue. Furthermore, our holding is determinative
of this issue and we decline to address petitioner’s further argument.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Bill Schuette
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
