Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial Certified by U.S. Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit, In re
Decision Date | 12 May 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 80SA161,80SA161 |
Parties | . Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In accordance with C.A.R. 21.1, the following question of law was certified to this court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit:
This court has agreed to respond to this question and notice thereof has been given to all parties concerned. Because most of the parties concerned appear pro se, briefs and oral argument have been dispensed with. See C.A.R. 21.1(f).
The question arises from four separate habeas corpus proceedings in the United States District Court for Colorado, wherein the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the denial of parole by the Colorado State Board of Parole (Board). Different judges heard the cases and reached conflicting determinations as to whether the petitions should be dismissed for the failure to exhaust state remedies.
A simple "yes" or "no" answer to this question cannot be given because the power of judicial review varies substantially based upon the nature of the claim made against the Board. Cf. People v. Malacara, Colo., 606 P.2d 1300 (1980) ( )
The Board is an arm of the executive branch of government. See C.R.S.1963, 39-18-1(6); C.R.S. '53, 39-17-3(6). See also 67A C.J.S. Pardon and Parole § 41. Judicial review of decisions by other branches of government is restricted by the separation of powers doctrine set out in Colo. Const. Art. III. See Colorado Land Use Commission v. Board of County Commissioners, Colo., 604 P.2d 32 (1979). Any judicial review is also limited to that which is provided by the constitution or laws of this state. See generally Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970).
District courts are constitutional courts of general jurisdiction. Colo.Const. Art. VI., Sec. 9. Courts of general jurisdiction may issue common law writs, including those in the nature of mandamus to inferior tribunals, boards, agencies, and officers of the state.
Since this power of review has not been modified by statute with respect to judicial review of Board actions, 1 a person denied parole can seek judicial review only as provided by C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2). This type of judicial review permits the district court to direct the Board "to proceed and exercise " its discretion, but not to "direct how discretion is to be exercised." Lamm v. Barber, 192 Colo. 511, 565 P.2d 538 (1977).
The decision of the Board to grant or deny parole is clearly discretionary since parole is "a privilege, and no prisoner is entitled to it as a matter of right." Silva v. People, 158 Colo. 326, 407 P.2d 38 (1965). Thus, the decision of the Board to grant or deny is not subject to judicial review. Nevertheless, section 17-2-201 creates certain statutory duties which the Board must perform in making its decision: e. g., the duty to interview the inmate under subsection (9)(a). It is only when the Board has failed to exercise its statutory duties that the courts of Colorado have the power to review the Board's actions. Cf. Sharp v. Tinsley, 147 Colo. 84, 362 P.2d 859 (1961) ( ); Snyder v. U. S. Board of Parole, 383...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall v. Kort
...directing that he be provided treatment, but the court cannot direct what treatment should be offered. In re: Question Concerning Judicial Review, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980). If the state hospital in this case failed to comply with its duty to provide the type of care and treatment......
-
Hanrahan v. Williams
...See Carrion v. New York State Board of Parole, 210 A.D.2d 403, 620 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1994); In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980). It is apparent that each state must decide, based on its own statutory scheme, whether the merits of......
-
Pisano v. Shillinger
...People v. White, 804 P.2d 247 (Colo.App.1990); Turman v. Buckallew, 784 P.2d 774 (Colo.1989); In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980); and Harris v. Board of Parole, 288 Or. 495, 605 P.2d 1181 A considerable list of law journal a......
-
People v. Davis
...board decision on the basis of the board’s failure "to exercise its statutory duties." In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial , 199 Colo. 463, 465, 610 P.2d 1340, 1341 (1980).¶ 70 We conclude that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Colorado’s parole syste......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...Cir. 1976); People v. District Court, 196 Colo. 401, 586 P.2d 31 (1978); In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980); City & County of Denver v. Bergland, 517 F. Supp. 155 (D. Colo. 1981); Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., 819 P.2d 69 (Colo. 19......
-
Rule 106 FORMS OF WRITS ABOLISHED.
...can seek judicial review only as provided by section (a)(2) of this rule. In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980). Acts of parole board are not reviewable. Administrative acts of the parole board, being definitely a matter of grace, and not a mat......
-
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
...District courts are constitutional courts of general jurisdiction. In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980). Constitutional jurisdiction may not be limited by statute. The constitutional jurisdiction of district courts is unlimited. It should not ......
-
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
...District courts are constitutional courts of general jurisdiction. In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980). Constitutional jurisdiction may not be limited by statute. The constitutional jurisdiction of district courts is unlimited. It should not ......