In Re Castaneda

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 385·1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 852·34 Cal. App. 3d 825
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 1973Crim. 6832California2,968 words

Opinion

Opinion

Janes, J.

Petitioner is confined at Folsom state prison following re-imprisonment on a charged parole violation. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the Adult Authority has denied him the preliminary hearing required by Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ].

The Morrissey Case

In Morrissey the court held that, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a parolee is entitled to two separate hearings during “the typical process of parole revocation.” The first hearing is “in the nature of a ‘preliminary hearing’ ” conducted “at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest and as promptly as convenient after arrest while information is fresh and sources are available.” The ultimate function of the hearing officer at that initial stage is “to determine whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that the arrested parolee has committed acts that would constitute a violation of parole conditions.” Determination of that issue adverse to the parolee warrants his continued detention and return to the state correctional institution pending the final decision of the parole board…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.