FISHER v CRIST

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: Filed: M&; ' : 1979 Decided : April 30, 1979 'KAY 2 2 1 9 x 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. Mr. 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. t h r o u g h 46-23-1106 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 46-23-1101 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 rea 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 Spok 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 elsewhere. 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 conv 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 cable statutes. f a c e of t h i s . 484, a s w e l l a s t h e a p p l i - The S t a t e p r e s e n t s two arguments i n t h e 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 t h e approf 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 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 administ 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 , a s h - be-he - 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 c t w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e , u n l e s s such hearing i (Emphasis - -s waived & t h e p a r o l e e 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 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 dition. 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 t - ------ 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 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*- - - 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 purp 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 subj 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 opport 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

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.