MORRISSEY V. BREWER 408 U.S. 471 (1972) CASE BRIEF

MORRISSEY V. BREWER

408 U.S. 471 (1972)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal of a suit where criminal defendants were challenging parole revocation procedures that led to their re-incarceration.

FACTS: Morrissey (D) was convicted of false drawing or uttering of checks in 1967. D was sentenced to not more than seven years' confinement. He was paroled in June 1968. Seven months later he was arrested in his home town as a parole violator and incarcerated in the county jail. One week later, after review of the parole officer's written report, the Iowa Board of Parole revoked D's parole, and he was returned to the penitentiary located about 100 miles from his home. D asserts he received no hearing prior to revocation of his parole. D is alleged to have violated the conditions of parole by buying a car under an assumed name and operating it without permission, giving false statements to police concerning his address and insurance company after a minor accident, obtaining credit under an assumed name, and failing to report his place of residence to his parole officer. The parole officer recommended that his parole be revoked because of 'his continual violating of his parole rules.' The situation as to petitioner Booher (D) is much the same. He asserts he received no hearing prior to revocation of his parole. After exhausting state remedies, Ds filed habeas corpus petitions. The District Court held on the basis of controlling authority that the State's failure to accord a hearing prior to parole revocation did not violate due process. On appeal, the two cases were consolidated. The Court of Appeals, dividing 4 to 3, held that due process does not require a hearing. The majority recognized that the traditional view of parole as a privilege rather than a vested right is no longer dispositive as to whether due process is applicable; however, on a balancing of the competing interests involved, it concluded that no hearing is required. The court reasoned that parole is only 'a correctional device authorizing service of sentence outside the penitentiary;' the parolee is still 'in custody.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner