Emory Newton Brown v. J. O. Kearney, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.S. Board of Parole

Fifth Circuit

Emory Newton Brown v. J. O. Kearney, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.S. Board of Parole

355 F.2d 199, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7359

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 28, 1966·No. 22760·Published·Cited by 42 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. Appellant contends in his petition that the revocation of his conditional release from the United States penitentiary was based solely on evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure.

While a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure, it is not necessary for us to pass on this question in reaching our decision.

Parole is a matter of grace, not of right, and the revoking of parole is within the sound discretion of the Parole Board. Excluding the evidence obtained by the search and seizure, the record shows there were ample grounds upon which to base the decision of the Parole Board and there was no abuse of its discretion in revoking the parole of petitioner.

The order of the United States District Court in denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. Appellant contends in his petition that the revocation of his conditional release from the United States penitentiary was based solely on evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure.

While a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure, it is not necessary for us to pass on this question in reaching our decision.

Parole is a matter of grace, not of right, and the revoking of parole is within the sound discretion of the Parole Board. Excluding the evidence obtained by the search and seizure, the record shows there were ample grounds upon which to base the decision of the Parole Board and there was no abuse of its discretion in revoking the parole of petitioner.

The order of the United States District Court in denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is therefore affirmed.

Emory Newton Brown v. J. O. Kearney, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.S. Board of Parole, 355 F.2d 199, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7359 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

355 F.2d 199 (Emory Newton Brown v. J. O. Kearney, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.S. Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related