PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Prisoner V. Correctional Center

1445 Words6 Pages
CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner prisoner filed for a writ of habeas corpus against respondent superintendent of correctional center, seeking to invalidate a September 24, 1992, order revoking his parole. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition. OVERVIEW: On appeal, the prisoner argued that he had not received due process in the parole revocation hearings. The prisoner was re-released on parole before the district court ruled. The Court affirmed the judgment. In so doing, the Court held that: (1) because the prisoner had completed the entire term of imprisonment underlying the parole revocation, the petition for habeas corpus was moot; (2) the Court declined to presume that collateral consequences adequate to meet U.S. Const. art. III's injury-in-fact requirement resulted from the prisoner's parole revocation; and (3) the prisoner had not demonstrated such consequences, and, thus, the claim was moot. OUTCOME: The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed. CORE TERMS: parole, collateral consequence, sentence, parole revocation, revocation, moot, custody, reputation,…show more content…
That his parole revocation could be used to his detriment in a future parole proceeding is merely a possibility rather than a certainty or a probability. That the revocation could be used to increase his sentence in a future sentencing proceeding is, like a similar claim rejected in Lane, contingent on petitioner's violating the law, being caught and convicted. Likewise speculative are petitioner's other allegations of collateral consequence -- that the parole revocation could be used to impeach him should he appear as a witness in future proceedings, and that it could be used directly against him should he appear as a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Pp.

More about PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Prisoner V. Correctional Center

Open Document