Hall (Shade) v. Warden

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: May 14, 2013
• Docket: 61053
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

the revocation of parole may be raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under NRS 34.360. See NRS 34.500; Hornback v. Warden, 97 Nev. 98, 100, 625 P.2d 83, 84 (1981). A parole revocation proceeding involves the loss of liberty and thus necessitates certain procedural due process protections for the parolee. Anaya v. State, 96 Nev. 119, 122, 606 P.2d 156, 157-58 (1980). Due process for parole revocation hearings requires, at a minimum, that "the finding of a parole violation will be based on verified facts and that the exercise of discretion will be informed by an accurate knowledge of the parolee's behavior." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484 (1972); see also Anaya, 96 Nev. at 122, 606 P.2d at 157-58 (citing Morrissey and setting out the minimum procedures necessary to revoke parole); NRS 213.1513; NRS 213.1517. Because the district court did not consider whether appellant was afforded the due process protections delineated in Morrissey, we reverse and remand for the district court to resolve the allegations set forth in appellant's habeas petition. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 2

2 Givenour resolution of this appeal, we deny the proper person motions received on June 28, 2012, and February 21, 2013, as moot.

2 cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge Shade W. Hall Attorney General/Carson City Pershing County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A