Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Golie v. State

Supreme Court of Montana

October 22, 2019

ANDREW DAVID GOLIE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA, BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLE, Respondent.

          ORDER

         Andrew 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.

         In 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.

         Golie argues he has a liberty interest in parole, that he was revoked upon "the lowest" of infractions, and that, at his on-site probable cause hearing, "extra fake baseless allegations and violations were alleged" Golie claims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.

         Parole 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).

         The 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."

         Golie's 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), MCA.

         Then, 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.

         Any 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).

         We have 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 DENIED.

         The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record for the Board of Pardons and Parole, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.