Pope v. Chew, 74-2095

• Decision Date: 04 August 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-2095,74-2095
• Citation: 521 F.2d 400
• Parties: Richard S. POPE, Appellant, v. Charles P. CHEW, Chairman, Virginia Parole & Probation Board or his successor, members of the Parole & Probation Board, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 400

521 F.2d 400

Richard S. POPE, Appellant, v. Charles P. CHEW, Chairman, Virginia Parole & Probation Board or his successor, members of the Parole &amp Probation Board, Appellees.

No. 74-2095.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1975.

Decided Aug. 4, 1975.

Mitchell M. Willoughby (third-year law student) and Randall M. Chastain, Columbia, S.C. (court-appointed counsel) for appellant.

Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge:

Richard S. Pope brought a Pro se complaint under § 1983, styled a "Petition for Declaratory Judgment," seeking damages from the Chairman and members of the Virginia Parole and Probation Board. Pope claimed that defendants denied him due process of law by recommending to the Governor that his pardon be revoked without having first afforded him a hearing. Pope appeals the district judge's grant of summary judgment for defendants. We reverse.

I.

Pope was convicted of murder in the Hustings Court of Portsmouth in 1936 and sentenced to die. In 1937 Governor Peery commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. On January 11, 1962, he was released on a pardon granted by Governor Almond, ¹ the operative language of which was as follows:

Therefore, I, J. Lindsey Almond, Jr., Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, have by virtue of authority vested in me, pardoned, and do hereby pardon the said RICHARD POPE and do order that he be forthwith discharged from imprisonment, but upon the terms and conditions following, namely:

That he will conduct himself in the future as a good, law-abiding citizen;

That he be placed under the supervision of the Virginia Parole Board, subject to the rules, regulations, and conditions of parole as set forth in a parole agreement, a signed copy of which is expressly incorporated into this pardon and made a part hereof;

and The effective date of this pardon shall be January 11, 1962.

And if he should violate any of such conditions or if ever again he be found guilty of a violation of the penal laws of the Commonwealth this pardon shall be null and void.

The parole agreement incorporated by reference into the pardon, and signed by Pope, contained the following statements:

YOU WILL REMAIN UNDER SUPERVISION UNTIL YOU RECEIVE THE FINAL ORDER OF DISCHARGE FROM THE PAROLE BOARD. Your minimum release date from supervision is January 11, 1967.

(original capitalization.)

The Parole Board released Pope from supervision on January 11, 1967. The short letter to Pope informing him of this action included the following:

In taking this action, the Probation and Parole Board is not relieving you of responsibility under any of the other terms of your pardon. This is only a release from supervision.

On July 23, 1973, the Parole Board wrote Governor Holton recommending that Pope's pardon be revoked. Except for a brief introductory paragraph the letter read In toto as set out in the margin. ²

On August 2, 1973, Governor Holton responded to the Board's letter:

I have thoroughly reviewed your report and have concluded that Mr. Pope has been afforded every possible consideration by the State. However, it appears that he has not taken advantage of these opportunities. I am, therefore, directing his conditional pardon granted by Governor Lindsay Almond on January 11, 1962 be revoked immediately.

Pope was accorded no notice or opportunity to be heard either before the Parole Board's recommendation or before Governor Holton's revocation of his pardon.

II.

Pope argues that the pardon and the parole agreement incorporated into it are ambiguous as to whether he was to remain subject to the conditions of the pardon after his release from Parole Board supervison on January 11, 1967. His position is that the pardon's stated condition that he be placed under Parole Board supervision and subject to the "rules, regulations, and conditions" of the parole agreement, coupled with the parole agreement's capital-letter statement that "You will remain under supervision until you receive The final order of discharge from the parole board (emphasis added)," support a reasonable inference that the Parole Board's release in 1967 constituted a total release from the conditions of the pardon. Pope gets around the clear and contrary language of the Parole Board's 1967 letter to him by noting the absence of evidence in the record that he ever received the letter. Thus, he argues, because of the alleged ambiguity in the documents it is possible that the pardon had become unconditional after 1967; if so, his due process rights were violated by its revocation. He contends that trial is necessary to resolve the alleged ambiguity, and that we must therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment.

The district court did not address this contention in its opinion. Pope's Pro se pleadings below did not, to say the least, spell it out so well as his appointed counsel has done on appeal, but a liberal reading finds that it was presented to the district court ³ and that we can therefore consider it.

We find this contention without merit. First, Pope's reliance upon lack of proof that he received the Parole Board's 1967 letter overlooks that he never claimed not to have received it, and that he apparently relies upon that very notification to claim that he thought his pardon was thereafter unconditional. Even assuming he never saw the letter, there is simply no ambiguity in the original documents. In addition to imposing the conditions that he "conduct himself in the future as a good, law-abiding citizen" and that he be subject to Parole Board supervision and regulations, the pardon clearly stated that it would become "null and void" if Pope was "ever again" convicted of a state crime. The Parole Board had no power, by the terms of the pardon itself, to do any more than release him from supervision. The condition of good conduct ⁴ and the potential for nullity upon a criminal conviction were continuing characteristics of the pardon subject to modification only by the Governor.

III.

The Supreme Court has held that procedural due process must be afforded in parole revocations, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), and in probation revocations, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). Cf. also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Pope asks us to hold that it must also be afforded in pardon revocations. The Commonwealth has not suggested, and we have been unable to imagine, how the liberty interests of one who is free on conditional pardon differ from one who is free on parole or probation. See Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593; Gagnon, supra, 411 U.S. at 782 & nn. 3, 4, 93 S.Ct. 1756. Surely no one would argue that an executive could revoke any pardon whimsically. The due process clause applies to revocations of conditional pardons.

The Commonwealth, however, argues that no hearing is required in this particular case. The Court in Morrissey, after holding that a hearing must be afforded in parole revocations, stated that "obviously a parolee cannot relitigate issues determined against him in other forums, as in the situation presented when the revocation is based on conviction of another crime." 408 U.S. at 490, 92 S.Ct. at 2605. The Commonwealth points out that the pardon stated on its face that "this pardon Shall be null and void" (emphasis added) upon Pope's conviction of another crime, and that the Parole Board's letter to Governor Holton stated that Pope had recently been convicted and sentenced for drug dealing. Thus, according to the Commonwealth, the pardon was by its own terms nullified by the conviction, and since Morrissey contemplates no relitigation of a conviction there was nothing to hold a hearing about.

This argument fails on two counts. Its first fallacy is its jump from the quoted language of Morrissey To the assumption that a bald allegation of a conviction, like that in the Parole Board letter, will support a revocation. Fairly read, the passage from Morrissey Says no more than that Proof Of a conviction introduced At a revocation hearing, precludes any attempt to prove that the crime was not committed. ⁵ The record contains no indication that Governor Holton was furnished official records to verify the accusation of the Parole Board. That all indications in the record confirm the fact of Pope's conviction is irrelevant, for it is the basis on which the Governor acted that counts. ^5A

The Commonwealth's argument also ignores that revocation of the pardon was in fact treated as a matter of discretion despite the automatic language contained in the pardon document. The Parole Board's letter set out, in addition to Pope's 1973 criminal conviction, at least two instances in which he violated Parole Board conditions while under its supervision. ⁶ Although violations of those conditions were by the terms of the pardon also violations of a condition of the pardon, and although the pardon stated that it "shall be null and void" upon violation of a condition, it is undeniable that Pope's pardon was not revoked in those two instances. Moreover, the Parole Board's recounting of Pope's entire post-pardon history including the numerous alleged arrests, Without convictions, contained in the post-sentence report coupled with Governor Holton's statements that he had "thoroughly reviewed" the Board's report and that Pope had "been afforded every possible consideration by the State," support an inference that Governor Holton did not automatically revoke on Pope's drug conviction, but instead exercised discretion. Because it is clear that the Governor had and exercised discretion, Morrissey affords Pope the right to present at a hearing mitigating factors, if any, that might influence the Governor not to revoke...