14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences2012See Morrissey, 408 US at 480 ; Gagnon, 411 US at 787-791 ; see also MCL 791.240a (during a parole-revocation hearing in Michigan, a parolee is in part entitled to written notice, a hearing, and, for indigent parolees, appointment of counsel). 2009The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that a parole revocation hearing, which is analogous to the probation revocation hearing at issue in the present case, is not equivalent to “a criminal prosecution[.]” Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 480 ; 92 S Ct 2593 ; 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972). | 1 | 4 |
Hawkins v. Michigan Parole Bd.green2 sentences2003The Attorney General cites Hawkins v Michigan Parole Bd, 390 Mich 569 ; 213 NW2d 193 (1973), in which this Court adopted and affirmed an opinion of the Court of Appeals ordering a parole revocation hearing de novo on the ground that the allegedly indigent plaintiff was not accorded a proper hearing because he was not provided with court-appointed counsel. 2003The Attorney General cites Hawkins v Michigan Parole Bd, 390 Mich 569 ; 213 NW2d 193 (1973), in which this Court adopted and affirmed an opinion of the Court of Appeals ordering a parole revocation hearing de novo on the ground that the allegedly indigent plaintiff was not accorded a proper hearing because he was not provided with court-appointed counsel. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hardenbrookgreen2 sentences2012We note, however, that the Supreme Court has stated that “the revocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocations.” Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 480 ; 92 S Ct 2593 ; 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972); see also People v Hardenbrook, 68 Mich App 640, 644-646 ; 243 NW2d 705 (1976). 2012We note, however, that the Supreme Court has stated that “the revocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocations.” Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 480 ; 92 S Ct 2593 ; 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972); see also People v Hardenbrook, 68 Mich App 640, 644-646 ; 243 NW2d 705 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rittergreen1 sentence2009See also Ritter, supra at 705 (“Revocation of probation is not a part of a criminal prosecution.”). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigangreen2 sentences2003Thus, unlike in Stewart and the present case, the consequences of holding an improper parole revocation hearing were not at issue in Hawkins. [16] See Phillips v. Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan, 153 Mich.App. 557, 566 , 396 N.W.2d 482 (1986) ("Habeas corpus is an alternative remedy and may be refused in the exercise of discretion where full relief may be obtained in other more appropriate proceedings."). [17] As noted by the Court of Appeals in this case, this Court, without comment, granted habeas corpus relief to the petitioner in Lane. 2003Thus, unlike in Stewart and the present case, the consequences of holding an improper parole revocation hearing were not at issue in Hawkins. [16] See Phillips v. Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan, 153 Mich.App. 557, 566 , 396 N.W.2d 482 (1986) ("Habeas corpus is an alternative remedy and may be refused in the exercise of discretion where full relief may be obtained in other more appropriate proceedings."). [17] As noted by the Court of Appeals in this case, this Court, without comment, granted habeas corpus relief to the petitioner in Lane. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Wayne County Prosecutorgreen1 sentence2000Wayne Co Prosecutor, supra at 488. | 1 | 1 |
Penn v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence1999See Penn, supra, pp 537-538 ; MCL 791.238(1); MSA 28.2308(1). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bainesgreen1 sentence1978See Anno: Comment Note. — Procedural Requirements, Under Federal Constitution, Applicable to Revocation of Probation or Parole, 36 L Ed 2d 1077 , § 18; People v Baines, 83 Mich App at 575-576 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Lawson v. Coinergreen2 sentences1970See Earnest v. Willingham (CA 10, 1969), 406 F2d 681, discussed infra. [8] In Lawson v. Coiner (D W Va, 1968), 291 F Supp 79 , relied on by our Court in Saunders , the prisoner contended that (p 81) "he was denied his right to appointed counsel at the parole revocation hearing in violation of the Sixth Amendment as applied through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Under West Virginia law the parolee "and his counsel" are entitled to a hearing on parole violation charges. 1970See Earnest v. Willingham (CA 10, 1969), 406 F2d 681, discussed infra. In Lawson v. Coiner (D W Va, 1968), 291 F Supp 79 , relied on by our Court in Saunders , the prisoner contended that (p 81) “he was denied his right to appointed counsel at the parole revocation hearing in violation of the Sixth Amendment as applied through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Under West Virginia law the parolee “and his counsel” are entitled to a hearing on parole violation charges. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2017The 3 The Board is only required to provide a general “written statement of the findings of fact and the reasons for the [revocation] determination within 60 days after the paroled prisoner has been returned or is available for return to a state correctional facility.” MCL 791.240a(6); Jones, 468 Mich at 660 n 2. -15- departure seems especially arbitrary, because the ALE informed the Board that she was recommending the continuance only because it was a firearms-related offense, and stated that, “The ALE does not object to the Board to [sic] exercising its discretion regarding the length of a c | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence2012See Morrissey, 408 US at 480 ; Gagnon, 411 US at 787-791 ; see also MCL 791.240a (during a parole-revocation hearing in Michigan, a parolee is in part entitled to written notice, a hearing, and, for indigent parolees, appointment of counsel). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Triplett v. Deputy Warden, Jackson Prison
green
2 sentences1986In Triplett v Deputy Warden, Jackson Prison, 142 Mich App 774 ; 371 NW2d 862 (1985), this Court held that the availability of review of parole revocation decisions under § 101 of the Administrative Procedures Act, supra, did not foreclose alternative avenues of judicial review. 1986In Triplett v Deputy Warden, Jackson Prison, 142 Mich App 774 ; 371 NW2d 862 (1985), this Court held that the availability of review of parole revocation decisions under § 101 of the Administrative Procedures Act, supra, did not foreclose alternative avenues of judicial review. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hawkins v. Michigan Parole Board
green
2 sentences1977This right is guaranteed by statute, MCLA 791.240a; MSA 28.2310(1), by Michigan appellate decisions, Hawkins v Michigan Parole Board, 45 Mich App 529 ; 206 NW2d 764 (1973), aff'd and opinion adopted, 390 Mich 569 ; 213 NW2d 193 (1973), by rules adopted by the Director of the Department of Corrections pursuant to statutory authority, Michigan Administrative Code, 1970-1971 AACS, R 791.333, and by a policy directive of the director dated July 3, 1974, No. PD-DWA-76.01. 1977This right is guaranteed by statute, MCLA 791.240a; MSA 28.2310(1), by Michigan appellate decisions, Hawkins v Michigan Parole Board, 45 Mich App 529 ; 206 NW2d 764 (1973), aff'd and opinion adopted, 390 Mich 569 ; 213 NW2d 193 (1973), by rules adopted by the Director of the Department of Corrections pursuant to statutory authority, Michigan Administrative Code, 1970-1971 AACS, R 791.333, and by a policy directive of the director dated July 3, 1974, No. PD-DWA-76.01. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
In Re Evans
green
1 sentence1975A parole violation warrant was issued on May 4, 1959, but was not executed until April of 1965 when defendant was released by the Federal authorities. 2 *586 The Court in Evans, supra, 432 stated: "Although a parole revocation hearing is not a trial with full constitutional implications, certainly we think the allegedly delinquent parolee has a right to have the parole board exercise reasonable diligence in seeking to hold a revocation hearing. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
In Re Vaughan
neutral
2 sentences1971In In re Vaughn (1963), 371 Mich 386 , the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing is categorized as "judicially shocking". 1971In In re Vaughn (1963), 371 Mich 386 , the use of hearsay at a parole revocation hearing is categorized as “judicially shocking”. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.