Meredith v. Raines, H-821

• Decision Date: 07 January 1982
• Docket Number: No. H-821,H-821
• Citation: 131 Ariz. 244,640 P.2d 175
• Parties: LeVoy MEREDITH, Appellant, v. Robert C. RAINES, Administrator; Arizona State Prison, State of Arizona, Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 175

640 P.2d 175

131 Ariz. 244

LeVoy MEREDITH, Appellant, v. Robert C. RAINES, Administrator; Arizona State Prison, State of Arizona, Appellees.

No. H-821.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Jan. 7, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1982.

K. C. Stanford, Tucson, for appellant.

LeVoy Meredith, in pro. per.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by Rory C. H. Abate, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellant.

CAMERON, Justice.

On 2 October 1980, after appropriate notice and hearing, the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles revoked the parole of LeVoy Meredith for failure to abide by special conditions imposed by Meredith's parole officer. Thereafter, Meredith filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Maricopa County. From an adverse ruling by the Superior Court, Meredith appealed to Division One of the Court of Appeals, and the matter was transferred to this court pursuant to Rule 19(e), Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, 17A A.R.S.

We must answer only one question on appeal: May parole be revoked based on a violation of a special condition imposed orally by the subject's parole officer?

The facts necessary for a determination of this issue are as follows. On 13 February 1980, Meredith was granted parole by the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles. Of the several written conditions of supervision placed on petitioner by the Department of Corrections, paragraph 8 of the agreement contained the following language as specifically set forth in the Arizona Administrative Rules and Regulations, R5-1-312(8):

"I will at all times adhere to my specific conditions of supervision. These conditions are subject to revision as may be required. This will include any special written conditions imposed by the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles or by my assigned parole officer."

Several months after Meredith's release, officers of the parole board were contacted by an acquaintance of Meredith. Although the acquaintance had been a long time friend of Meredith, she told the parole officers that her recent contacts with Meredith had been offensive and harassing. Pursuant to this conversation, parole officer Dickerson, on 11 June 1980, verbally informed Meredith that his current parole status would be subject to the additional condition that any further contact with this acquaintance be discontinued. A heated discussion ensued and it is apparent that although Meredith did not specifically agree to this condition, he nevertheless remained at liberty. Thereafter, an additional complaint from the acquaintance that harassing letters and phone calls from Meredith had continued caused Meredith's parole to be subsequently revoked, after a hearing in which it was found that he had violated the orally imposed special condition. At the revocation hearing, Meredith admitted that he understood the verbal restrictions placed by the parole officer and that they had been violated.

At the outset, the State takes the position that neither the written agreement containing the conditions for parole nor the regulations under which the agreement was made preclude oral modifications of the original conditions. We agree. Although the agreement specifically "includes any special written conditions," we do not believe that it excludes oral conditions set down as a part of the parolee's supervision. Indeed, it would be unusual if there were not many conditions that could be orally imposed by the parole officer as part of the parolee's continuing supervision. Under these circumstances, it might be overly burdensome to require a written statement of each additional condition. Although written conditions might be desirable in any case upon which a revocation of parole is based, we do not believe it is required.

Meredith contends, however, that even if paragraph 8 of the agreement and R5-1-312, Arizona Administrative Rules and Regulations, do not require written modifications, principles of due process forbid arbitrary oral changes in conditions for parole. In support of his position, he points to the...