David Golie has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
seeking relief from the revocation of his parole by the Board
of Pardons and Parole (Board) on September 3, 2019. Golie
asserts he is illegally incarcerated because his parole was
illegally revoked, and attaches several documents: the
Board's Case Disposition, an On Site Affidavit of
Probable Cause Hearing on Parole Violations, a Summary of an
On-Site Hearing, and Probation and Parole Division (PPD)
Policy, PPD 6.3.101.
2012, the Ravalli County District Court sentenced Golie to
the Montana State Prison (MSP) as a persistent felony
offender, upon his conviction of tampering with witnesses or
informants, to a twenty-year term with five years suspended.
argues he has a liberty interest in parole, that he was
revoked upon "the lowest" of infractions, and that,
at his on-site probable cause hearing, "extra fake
baseless allegations and violations were alleged" Golie
claims he was not give his full remedies pursuant to the
Montana Incentives/Interventions Grid (MIIG) for Adult
Probation & Parole, and was denied due process.
revocation involves certain due process requirements. The
United States Supreme Court has held that following arrest, a
parolee has a right to an administrative on-site hearing to
determine if reasonable grounds for revocation exist.
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485, 92 S.Ct.
2593, 2602 (1972). The United States Supreme Court listed
these minimum requirements as:
(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b)
disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c)
opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses
and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and
cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer
specifically finds good cause for not allowing
confrontation); (e) a "neutral and detached"
hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of
which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a
written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence
relied on and reasons for revoking parole.
Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604. The
Court explained that parole revocation is a "narrow
inquiry," requiring only that the process be
"flexible enough." Morrissey, 408 U.S. at
489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604. The Court emphasized that a parole
revocation does not equate to a criminal prosecution.
Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604. This
"narrow inquiry" does not occur in a court of law,
but before a "'neutral and detached' hearing
body such as a traditional parole board[.]"
Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604;
see also § 46-23-1025(1)-(2), MCA. The Montana
parole revocation process is governed by statutes and
administrative rules. Sections 46-23-1021, 46-23-1023, and
46-23-1025, MCA; Admin. R. M. 20.25.801 (2016).
documents accompanying Golie's petition establish that he
was given all of the process he was due prior to the formal
revocation of his parole. On July 11, 2019, he had an
informal Intervention Hearing pursuant to §
46-23-1023(2), MCA, where his Probation and Parole Officer
noted his alleged violations following the granting of his
parole to the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) in April
2019. Golie received written notice of his violations in the
August 5, 2019 Affidavit in Support of Probable Cause
Hearing. His Probation and Parole Officer listed all of his
violations, including not obtaining gainful employment;
continued association with drug users; admitting and testing
positive to meth use; and not getting a CD evaluation. His
parole officer stated, "I believe that the appropriate
violation responses under the Department's incentives and
interventions grid have been exhausted."
next step was an on-site hearing pursuant to §
46-23-1025, MCA. He appeared on August 8, 2019, after
receiving notice. His rights were reviewed in the notice and
at the hearing. Section 46-23-1024, MCA. Based upon the
evidence, the Hearings Officer found probable cause for the
asserted violations, and that Golie was in violation of his
parole. The Hearings Officer advised Golie "that since
Probable Cause was found he violated his parole and the MUG
has been exhausted, he would be returned to face the [Board]
for a revocation of his parole" Section 46-23-1025(1),
the Board held an on-site parole revocation hearing at MSP on
September 3, 2019. Section 46-23-1025(2), MCA. Golie appeared
in person, and was allowed to speak and present evidence.
Golie received a written decision explaining the denial,
known as a Case Disposition. In the Disposition, the Board
denied parole and imposed a penalty of 180 days of
"clear conduct" from August 14, 2019 before further
parole, because of the nature of Golie's violations and
need for pre-release placement. The Board recommended
intensive outpatient CD treatment in the community.
additional remedy for Golie is with the Board. As the Board
allowed and as Golie acknowledges in his petition, he may be
granted parole if he meets all parole conditions and added
special conditions. Admin. R. M. 20.25.801(16)(f) (2016).
Golie contends that the clear conduct date should start on
August 5, 2019, and not August 14. However, on August 5,
Golie was held in the Missoula County Detention Center and
not MSP. Admin. R. M. 20.25.801(8) (2016).
recognized the Board's broad authority and its discretion
to decide an inmate's parole. McDermott v.
McDonald, 2001 MT 89, ¶ 25, 305 Mont. 166, 24 P.3d
200. Golie's attached documents verify his parole
violations, substantiate the parole revocation process, and
justify his return to incarceration. Golie does not have a
liberty interest in parole because he committed his offense
in 2011, well after 1989. Worden v. Board of Pardons and
Parole, 1998 MT 168, ¶ 42, 289 Mont. 459, 962 P.2d
1157 Golie has exhausted his remedies under MIIG, and he will
receive further treatment in the community. We conclude the
Board acted within its statutory authority in revoking
Golie's parole, Golie's due process rights were not
violated, and he has not demonstrated that he is illegally
incarcerated. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Therefore, IT IS
ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record for the Board of Pardons and Parole, ...