Massachusetts Parole Board v. Brusgulis
This text of 532 N.E.2d 45 (Massachusetts Parole Board v. Brusgulis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
T his complaint by the Massachusetts Parole Board pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1986 ed.), is before us on reservation and report by a single [1011]*1011justice of this court. The case, involving the propriety of a grant of habeas corpus relief by the Superior Court which restored Richard Brusgulis to the parole status he enjoyed prior to revocation of his parole on the basis of a criminal indictment against him, is rendered moot by the subsequent revocation of parole based on new and separate indictments. We note, however, that since parole constitutes a variation on imprisonment, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 477 (1972), and not an unrestrained release from confinement, a grant of declaratory relief rather than a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to be sought or granted where the revocation of parole is challenged. See Pina v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Walpole, 376 Mass. 659, 664 (1978).
The case is remanded to the county court for the entry of an- order dismissing the complaint.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
532 N.E.2d 45, 403 Mass. 1010, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massachusetts-parole-board-v-brusgulis-mass-1989.