Franciosi v. Parole Board

604 N.W.2d 675, 461 Mich. 347

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: February 1, 2000
• Docket: Docket 113550
• Status: Published

Opinions

Memorandum Opinion. Sabatino Franciosi appealed from an adverse decision of the parole board. He alleged that MCL 791.235(6); MSA 28.2305(6), which bars an attorney from acting as a prisoner’s representative at his parole interview, violates federal and state guaranties of equal protection of the law. He challenged a second parole board practice as violative of MCL 791.206(2); MSA 28.2276(2) and 1996 AACS, R 791.7765(1). Under the practice, two agreeing members of a three-member panel of the parole board decide a prisoner’s eligibility for parole, without the third member’s participation. Finally, plaintiff challenged as inadequate the reasons cited by the board for denying him parole.

The Wayne Circuit Court found for plaintiff on all three issues. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the first two issues and found it unnecessary to address the third. In re Parole of Franciosi, 231 Mich App 607; 586 NW2d 542 (1998). Plaintiff appeals.¹

We issue this memorandum opinion for the limited purpose of clarifying the Court of Appeals holding regarding the first issue.

We affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals with the understanding that the statute does not prevent a lawyer from attending and participating in a parole interview in the same manner that a nonlawyer could.² However, a lawyer cannot act as a legal representative of a prisoner during a parole interview. See MCL 791.235(6); MSA 28.2305(6).

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals as clarified.

Cavanagh, Kelly, Taylor, and Markman, JJ., concurred.

1 Although plaintiff has apparently been paroled, we issue this opinion because the issue is capable of repetition while evading our review, the issue has been briefed, defendant has not argued the case is moot, and the Court of Appeals opinion is published. Durant v Michigan, 456 Mich 175, 201, n 29; 566 NW2d 272 (1997).

2 Our clarification is consistent with the position asserted by defendant in its brief on appeal, to wit: “There is no dispute that [attorney] Mr. Bush could appear in his role as a private citizen as a representative of a prisoner.”