Ernest Mays, Jr. v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, San Quentin Prison

The district court granted appellee’s petition for habeas corpus, holding that in the circumstances of this case he was entitled to assistance of counsel in proceedings that resulted in the revocation of his parole by the California Adult Authority.

The district court pointed out (1) that erroneous information was submitted to the Board regarding the offense with which appellee had been charged, and (2) that verification of certain facts relevant to whether parole should have been revoked was available but was not received by the Adult Authority. Mays v. Nelson, 323 F.Supp. 587, 588-589 (N. D.Cal.1971).

(1) The error regarding the charge went uneorrected because, although appellee was informed of the general allegation that he had violated a condition of his parole requiring him “to obey all municipal, county, state, and federal laws, and ordinances,” he was not informed of the particular offense the Adult Authority believed he had been charged with — information counsel could have obtained. The erroneous information was contained in the report of appellee’s parole officer to the Adult Authority. Under the Adult Authority’s procedures, this report is usually the only information…