People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBURKE; FULD, C.J., and BERGAN and GIBSON, JJ., concur with BURKE
Citation28 N.Y.2d 415,271 N.E.2d 517,322 N.Y.S.2d 668
Decision Date26 May 1971
Parties, 271 N.E.2d 517 The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Thomas MAGGIO, Appellant, v. J. Leland CASSCLES, as Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Respondent.

Page 668

322 N.Y.S.2d 668
28 N.Y.2d 415, 271 N.E.2d 517
The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Thomas MAGGIO, Appellant,
v.
J. Leland CASSCLES, as Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Respondent.
Court of Appeals of New York.
May 26, 1971.

Page 670

[271 N.E.2d 518] E. Robert Giuntini, White Plains, Philip A. J. Giangrande, White Plains, of counsel, for appellant.

[28 N.Y.2d 416] Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Burton Herman and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

BURKE, Judge.

Relator was arrested on June 5, 1969 for violation of parole. On June 24, 1969 he was returned to Sing Sing [28 N.Y.2d 417] Prison, where, on July 29, 1969, a parole revocation hearing was held. The hearing, which resulted in a revocation, was conducted, of course, without representation of relator by counsel.

In his habeas corpus petition, relator alleged that he was not informed of the charges against him and that he was denied counsel and the opportunity to call witnesses. On the return of the writ, counsel appointed by Justice Galloway requested access to whatever records were relied on by the Parole Board to ascertain if the procedure complied with due process requirements. The court ordered the record of the revocation hearing, reviewed it without allowing relator's attorney the opportunity of evaluating it and held that the relator's allegation was untrue. He found further that relator was not denied due process.

[271 N.E.2d 519] The issue here is whether our decision in People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, 27 N.Y.2d 376, 318 N.Y.S.2d 449, 267 N.E.2d 238, ought to be given retroactive application. We held there that a parolee is constitutionally entitled to counsel and to introduce testimony at parole revocation hearings. These constitutional imperative are of sufficient magnitude (see, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 LEd.2d 287) that the decision could be applied retroactively (see e.g., McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2, 89 SCt. 32, 21 L.Ed.2d 2; Arsenault

Page 671

v. Massachusetts, 393 U.S. 5, 89 S.Ct. 35, 21 L.Ed.2d 5; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799). On the other hand, full retroactivity which indiscriminately would order a new hearing for thousands of prisoners affected would impose a purposeless and impossible burden on the parole board.

Although, theoretically, it may be said that, inasmuch as habeas corpus was utilized to raise the question collaterally because other methods of review were unavailable (see Matter of Menechino v. Division of Parole, 26 N.Y.2d 837, 309 N.Y.S.2d 585, 258 N.E.2d 84), the decision was, itself, a retrospective application of a constitutional doctrine (see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 628,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 practice notes
  • Doucette v. Mass. Parole Bd., No. 13–P–149.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 29, 2014
    ...v. Shillinger, 835 P.2d 1136, 1138–1140 (Wyo.1992). Some States entertain a writ of habeas corpus. See People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 418, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 271 N.E.2d 517 (1971) ; Wright v. Ghee, 74 Ohio St.3d 465, 466–467, 659 N.E.2d 1261 (1996). Among those States that......
  • Barbour v. People
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 18, 1994
    ...but an administrative hearing to determine whether a parolee has violated the conditions of parole (People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 418, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 271 N.E.2d 517; see also People ex rel. Piccarillo v. New York State Board of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 76, 80, 421 N.Y.S.2d 8......
  • Tinsley v. New York State Bd. of Parole
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 1, 1973
    ...light of People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, 27 N.Y.2d 376, 318 N.Y.S.2d 449, 267 N.E.2d 238, supra; People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 271 N.E.2d 517, and most importantly, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d The limitation in Corre......
  • People ex rel. Dowdy v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 15, 1978
    ...whether a parolee has violated the conditions of his parole (Corrections Law, § 212, subd. 7)." (People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 418, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 671, 271 N.E.2d 517, 519, Quoted in People ex rel. Warren v. Mancusi, 40 A.D.2d 279, 281, 339 N.Y.S.2d 882, 885; see Morr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
62 cases
  • Doucette v. Mass. Parole Bd., No. 13–P–149.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 29, 2014
    ...v. Shillinger, 835 P.2d 1136, 1138–1140 (Wyo.1992). Some States entertain a writ of habeas corpus. See People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 418, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 271 N.E.2d 517 (1971) ; Wright v. Ghee, 74 Ohio St.3d 465, 466–467, 659 N.E.2d 1261 (1996). Among those States that......
  • Barbour v. People
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 18, 1994
    ...but an administrative hearing to determine whether a parolee has violated the conditions of parole (People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 418, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 271 N.E.2d 517; see also People ex rel. Piccarillo v. New York State Board of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 76, 80, 421 N.Y.S.2d 8......
  • Tinsley v. New York State Bd. of Parole
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 1, 1973
    ...light of People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, 27 N.Y.2d 376, 318 N.Y.S.2d 449, 267 N.E.2d 238, supra; People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 271 N.E.2d 517, and most importantly, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d The limitation in Corre......
  • People ex rel. Dowdy v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 15, 1978
    ...whether a parolee has violated the conditions of his parole (Corrections Law, § 212, subd. 7)." (People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 418, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 671, 271 N.E.2d 517, 519, Quoted in People ex rel. Warren v. Mancusi, 40 A.D.2d 279, 281, 339 N.Y.S.2d 882, 885; see Morr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT