Brest v. Ciccone
| Decision Date | 08 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18500.,18500. |
| Citation | 371 F.2d 981 |
| Parties | Harold Martin BREST, Appellant, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Director, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Harold Martin Brest, submitted brief, pro se.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., and John Harry Wiggins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., filed brief on behalf of appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, BLACKMUN and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, presently confined in the Federal Medical Center, Springfield, Missouri, under a life sentence for kidnapping, appeals from an order of the District Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that he is illegally detained because of the wrongful denial of parole by the United States Board of Parole, which acted upon untrue and prejudicial reports supplied to the Board by various administrative officials of the Medical Center. He contends that the Board, being aware of the false statements, is guilty of "malfeasance in office"; and that he was denied "equality of justice," inasmuch as other prisoners in like circumstances, including his codefendant, have been paroled. The District Court denied his motion on March 18, 1966, but upon appellant's application for reconsideration on the basis of the falsity of the reports the District Court vacated its original order, and ordered respondent to show cause why the writ should not issue. Respondent filed his response, appellant's reply to same followed, and on June 29, 1966, the District Court again denied appellant's petition.
Appellant alleges that his progress reports erroneously state that he "continues to serve his sentences for Kidnapping, Bank Robbery, and National Motor Vehicle Theft Act," when in fact he is serving only a life sentence for kidnapping.1 He also disputes statements in the reports that he takes no part in religious activities at the Center, and has failed to make satisfactory adjustment in all federal institutions. To show his good conduct, the falsity of the reports and his eligibility for parole, appellant moved to subpoena some twenty-six witnesses and all progress, work, conduct and disciplinary reports, together with all of his records in federal institutions, dating back to 1937.
The District Court's denial of appellant's petition must be affirmed. By the language of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4203, the Board of Parole is given absolute discretion in matters of parole. The courts are without power to grant a parole or to judicially determine eligibility for parole. Furthermore, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toolasprashad v. Grondolsky
...or to repass on the credibility of reports and information received by the Board in making its determinations." Brest v. Ciccone, 371 F.2d 981, 982-83 (8th Cir. 1967).... The only remedy the court can give is to order the Board to correct the abuses or wrongful conduct within a fixed period......
-
State v. Eaton
...absolute discretion over the parole decision" to the executive branch through its parole officers. Id., citing Brest v. Ciccone, 371 F.2d 981, 982-83 (8th Cir. 1967). Regarding the late-twentieth century shift toward indefinite sentencing schemes, the court in Mistretta stated:Congress dele......
-
Edwards v. U.S.
..."to supervise, control, or second-guess the Parole Board." United States v. White, 540 F.2d 409, 411 (8th Cir. 1976); see Brest v. Ciccone,371 F.2d 981 (8th Cir. 1967). On the other hand, however, the Parole Board must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the federal Constitu......
-
Mistretta v. United States United States v. Mistretta
...L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). The correction official possessed almost absolute discretion over the parole decision. See, e.g., Brest v. Ciccone, 371 F.2d 981, 982-983 (CA8 1967); Rifai v. United States Parole Comm'n, 586 F.2d 695 (CA9 Historically, federal sentencing—the function of determining the ......