parole violation in New Hampshire

2011See Moody, 127 N.H. at 554 ; Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484 (one purpose of informal parole revocation hearing is to provide procedural protection “to assure that the finding of a parole violation will be based on verified facts” (emphasis added)).

2011Affording the defendant these procedures ensures “that the fact-finder will make an accurate determination on the basis of reliable evidence and verified facts.” Moody v. Cunningham, 127 N.H. 550, 554 (1986); Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484 (stating that a parole revocation hearing should be “structured to assure that the finding of a parole violation will be based on verified facts and that the exercise of discretion will be informed by an accurate knowledge of the parolee’s behavior”). *178 the record must show that the following procedures have been afforded: (1) written notice of the conduct wh

2011See Moody, 127 N.H. at 554 ; Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484 (one purpose of informal parole revocation hearing is to provide procedural protection “to assure that the finding of a parole violation will be based on verified facts” (emphasis added)).

2011Affording the defendant these procedures ensures “that the fact-finder will make an accurate determination on the basis of reliable evidence and verified facts.” Moody v. Cunningham, 127 N.H. 550, 554 (1986); Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484 (stating that a parole revocation hearing should be “structured to assure that the finding of a parole violation will be based on verified facts and that the exercise of discretion will be informed by an accurate knowledge of the parolee’s behavior”). *178 the record must show that the following procedures have been afforded: (1) written notice of the conduct wh

2021See Millan, 4 F.3d at 1047-48 (noting the fact that “much of the ongoing criminal activity charged in the indictment occurred during [the defendant’s] five years of probation following his homicide conviction” as relevant to the strength of the evidence regarding the defendant’s dangerousness).

2012Consequently, under RSA 651-A:19, the time between the defendant’s return to prison after his arrest on the parole violation warrant and his conviction on the burglary charges, which effectively constituted revocation of his parole, “shall be considered as time served as a portion of the maximum sentence.” RSA 651-A:19; cf. Gentry, 163 N.H. at 282 (finding that in “addressing how to apply credit for time served post-arrest/pre-revocation, . . . the legislature intended this credit to be applied solely to reduce the maximum sentence and not to reduce the recommitment period”).

2012See Ali v. District of Columbia, 612 A.2d 228, 230 (D.C. 1992) (finding that “if the parole violation warrant was validly executed while appellant was being held for the new offense, he would not be entitled to receive credit in the new case for time spent after the warrant was executed” because that time would be credited to the sentence for which he was on parole); State v. Blondin, 665 A.2d 587, 592 (Vt. 1995) (holding that “when a defendant is incarcerated based on conduct that leads both to revocation of probation or parole and to conviction on new charges, the time spent in jail before t

2012See Ali v. District of Columbia, 612 A.2d 228, 230 (D.C. 1992) (finding that “if the parole violation warrant was validly executed while appellant was being held for the new offense, he would not be entitled to receive credit in the new case for time spent after the warrant was executed” because that time would be credited to the sentence for which he was on parole); State v. Blondin, 665 A.2d 587, 592 (Vt. 1995) (holding that “when a defendant is incarcerated based on conduct that leads both to revocation of probation or parole and to conviction on new charges, the time spent in jail before t

2011Cf. State v. Flood, 159 N.H. 353, 355 (2009) (defendant’s decision to testify or present evidence, or to remain silent, at hearing for imposition of suspended or deferred sentence occurring prior to related criminal prosecution is a strategic choice, though a difficult one).

2011See Veale, 158 N.H. at 639 (to evaluate whether procedure afforded requisite safeguards, court considers, among other things, risk of erroneous deprivation of private interest through procedures used).

2009The notice should state what parole violations have been alleged.” Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 486-87 . *469 “Technical errors in the parole revocation process do not rise to the level of a constitutional issue, and a parolee must show prejudice before we will find a due process violation.” Linton v. Walker, 26 Fed.