Williams v. Field
Decision Date | 21 July 1969 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 69-786. |
Citation | 301 F. Supp. 902 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Parties | Elmo WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. H. V. FIELD, Superintendent, Respondent. |
Elmo Williams, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., William V. Ballough, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner is a California State prisoner, presently incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center at Norco, California, who here seeks relief from an allegedly improper revocation of his parole status. More specifically, he charges:
After reviewing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Response, and the arguments and authorities set forth by the parties, this Court is fully advised in the premises and thus orders that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied for the following reasons:
1. Petitioner's first contention, that his parole revocation was improperly based upon an untrue, hearsay telephone call, will not support the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. This contention refers to the second charge in the violation report in which it was charged that petitioner called his sister seven times in one evening and made threats against her, her husband, and petitioner's ex-wife. This behavior constituted a breach of a parole condition that he discontinue contact with his sister. Petitioner's claim that he did not make these calls, and that, in any event, it was only hearsay evidence (his sister informed petitioner's parole officer of the nature of the calls) does not raise a substantial federal question, since it merely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Moreover, petitioner is not now in a position to challenge this charge, since he originally pleaded guilty and admitted contact with his sister.
Parole revocation proceedings are different in nature and purpose from a trial with its constitutional protections. The dispute which is resolved in a parole revocation is essentially an administrative rather than a judicial determination. Duffy v. Wells, 201 F.2d 503, 506 (9th Cir.1952); Fleischer v. Adult Authority, 202 Cal.App.2d 44, 46, 20 Cal. Rptr. 603, 605-606 (1962). The following language is helpful in understanding the nature and purpose of a parole revocation proceeding:
Sorensen v. Young, 282 F.Supp. 1009, 1010 (D. Minn. 1968...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tinsley v. New York State Bd. of Parole
...have determined whether satisfactory evidence, Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4, 92 S.Ct. 22, or sufficient evidence, Williams v. Field, 301 F.Supp. 902 (D.C., Cal., 1969) existed to support a determination; an equivalent review. If available through habeas corpus, utilization of Article 78......
-
People ex rel. Ayers v. Lombard
...like criminal trials. 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; Williams v. Field (D.C., Cal.), 301 F.Supp. 902. They are not adversary proceedings. People ex rel. Warren v. Mancusi, 40 A.D.2d 279, 282, 339 N.Y.S.2d 882, 886; People e......