Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 34
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 34, § 1675 (2026)

Violations of parole

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 460 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 391, §33 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 326, §§2,3 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 172, §§12,13 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 499, §71 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1965–1981 · leading case: Collins v. State, 213 A.2d 835 (Me. 1965).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Collins v. State, 213 A.2d 835 (Me. 1965). · cites it 5× “The legal attack made by petitioner to force a conclusion of waiver by the State in the present case raises one issue not argued in -Libby and founded upon 34 M.R.S.A. § 1675 which reads: “When a parolee violates a condition of his parole or violates the law, a member of the…”
Mottram v. State, 232 A.2d 809 (Me. 1967). · cites it 2× “The issue arises by reason of the provisions of 34 M.R.S.A. § 1675 which reads as follows: “Violation of parole.”
State v. Allen, 235 A.2d 529 (Me. 1967). “” 34 M.R.S.A. § 1675. Here the statute to be construed provides that “after hearing” the court mhy revoke probation.”
State v. Holbrook, 318 A.2d 62 (Me. 1974). “34 M.R.S.A. § 1675 et seq.; see, Mottram v.”
Boutot v. State, 380 A.2d 195 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “Petitioner’s imprisonment from February 22, the date he was reinstated to active parole status, to December 28, the date he was discharged to the manslaughter sentence, was illegal.”
Weeks v. State, 250 A.2d 827 (Me. 1969). “*829 Upon commitment to the State Prison, the application of the statute (34 M.R.S.A. §§ 1675, 1676), which requires that a parolee who commits an offense while on parole, and who is sentenced to the State Prison, shall complete the execution of the prior sentence, unless it be…”
Eaton v. State, 302 A.2d 588 (Me. 1973). “With reference to Count 2, appellant again asserts a failure to allege lawful detention because the authority of a probation-parole officer to arrest a parolee is found in 34 M.R.S.A. § 1675 4 and not in 34 M.R.S.”
State v. Jackson, 394 A.2d 769 (Me. 1978). “499, § 71, repealing as of May 1, 1976 34 M.R.S.A. § 1675. At oral argument, however, this contention was conceded to be without merit.”
Bernier Ex Rel. Bernier v. State, 265 A.2d 604 (Me. 1970). “The “parolee is under the custody of the warden or superintendent of the in *607 stitution from which he was released.”
Gordon v. Mullaney, 317 A.2d 804 (Me. 1974). “34 M.R.S.A. § 1675. 2 Mindful of the Maine constitutional provision that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” 3 we must determine from the agreed statement of facts whether the petitioner was accorded that type of a “hearing”…”
Ware v. State, 436 A.2d 384 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “2 Those regulations contemplate a two-stage revocation hearing by the Board: first, an adjudicatory hearing, at which the Board decides whether the parolee has violated any of the conditions of his parole, and, second, if a violation is found, a dispositional hearing at which…”
Stubbs v. State, 281 A.2d 134 (Me. 1971). “” 34 M.R.S.A. § 1675. *136 In Mottram v. State, supra, this Court took occasion to discuss the status of a parolee during the period he is on parole.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.