Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.231a

Parole board; establishment; appointment, terms, and removal of members; vacancy; salary and expenses; designation and responsibility of chairperson; powers and duties.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CORRECTIONS CODE OF 1953


Act 232 of 1953


791.231a Parole board; establishment; appointment, terms, and removal of members; vacancy; salary and expenses; designation and responsibility of chairperson; powers and duties.

Sec. 31a.

    (1) Beginning October 1, 1992, there is established in the department, a parole board consisting of 10 members who shall be appointed by the director and who shall not be within the state civil service.

    (2) Members of the parole board shall be appointed to terms of 4 years each, except that of the members first appointed, 4 shall serve for terms of 4 years each, 3 shall serve for terms of 3 years each, and 3 shall serve for terms of 2 year each. A member may be reappointed. The director may remove a member of the parole board for incompetency, dereliction of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office. If a vacancy occurs on the parole board, the director shall make an appointment for the unexpired term in the same manner as an original appointment. At least 4 members of the parole board shall be persons who, at the time of their appointment, have never been employed by or appointed to a position in the department of corrections.

    (3) Each member of the parole board shall receive an annual salary as established by the legislature and shall be entitled to necessary traveling expenses incurred in the performance of official duties subject to the standardized travel regulations of the state.

    (4) The chairperson of the parole board shall be designated by the director. The chairperson of the parole board is responsible for the administration and operation of the parole board. The chairperson may conduct interviews and participate in the parole decision making process. The chairperson shall select secretaries and other assistants as the chairperson considers to be necessary.

    (5) The parole board created in this section shall exist for purposes of appointment and training on October 1, 1992, and as of November 15, 1992, shall exercise and perform the powers and duties prescribed and conferred by this act.

History: Add. 1992, Act 181, Imd. Eff. Sept. 22, 1992

PopularName Notes:

Department of Corrections Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: In re Parole of Elias
In re Parole of Elias (2011) michctapp “MCL 791.231a. The Board consists of 10 members serving staggered terms.”
Aguirre v. Department of Corrections (2014) michctapp “Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the members’ motion for summary disposition and denying the State’s motion for summary disposition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In re Parole of Haeger (2011) michctapp “Because the Board violated its regulatory duty to defer its decision until Haeger received a psychological evaluation and its duty to consider Haeger’s development of a parole plan, and because the Board’s failure to adequately and timely comply with the circuit court’s remand…”
Hopkins v. Parole Board (2000) michctapp “Subject to constitutional powers vested in the executive and judicial departments of the state, the department shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the following: (a) Probation officers of this state, and the administration of all orders of probation, (b) pardons, reprieves,…”
In Re Wayne County Prosecutor (1999) michctapp “MCL 791.231a; MSA 28.2301(1). MCL 791.234; MSA 28.”
In Re Parole of Bivings (2000) michctapp “MCL 791.231a; MSA 28.2301(1); Hopkins, supra at 637 .”
Carlton Vur Adams v. Parole Board (2022) michctapp · cites it 2× “As part of exercising its discretion, the Parole Board may consider all “relevant factors” to the parole decision, “if not otherwise prohibited by law.”
Trevor Kelly v. Parole Board (2017) michctapp “233e(2) and (3) enumerated a list of both mandatory and permissive factors for the Board to consider when developing parole guidelines, id.”
People of Michigan v. Kellie Nichole Stock (2023) michctapp “See Hopkins v Parole Bd, 237 Mich App 629, 637 ; 604 NW2d 686 (1999), citing MCL 791.231a. “A paroled prisoner remains in the custody of the Department of Corrections.”
O in Re Parole of Kenneth Donald Siders (2024) michctapp “In short, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Parole Board. [In re McBrayer Parole, 511 Mich at 412 (quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration in original).”
Derrick Lashon Braddock v. Parole Board (2024) michctapp “203, including the power to appoint the Parole Board, MCL 791.231a. But the Legislature has not given the Director a seat on the Parole Board or the power to cast a tie-breaking vote.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.231a(1) — 2 cases
Aguirre v. Department of Corrections (2014) michctapp “Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the members’ motion for summary disposition and denying the State’s motion for summary disposition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In re Parole of Haeger (2011) michctapp “Because the Board violated its regulatory duty to defer its decision until Haeger received a psychological evaluation and its duty to consider Haeger’s development of a parole plan, and because the Board’s failure to adequately and timely comply with the circuit court’s remand…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.231a(5) — 2 cases
Carlton Vur Adams v. Parole Board (2022) michctapp “As part of exercising its discretion, the Parole Board may consider all “relevant factors” to the parole decision, “if not otherwise prohibited by law.”
O in Re Parole of Kenneth Donald Siders (2024) michctapp “In short, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Parole Board. [In re McBrayer Parole, 511 Mich at 412 (quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration in original).”
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.