Crossno v. Felts
2014 Ark. 262
Ark.2014Background
- Appellant Michael James Crossno filed a pro se petition for judicial review under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenging the Parole Board chairman’s denial/reversal of his parole.
- Crossno alleged parole was granted April 11, 2013, reversed July 11, 2013, and that the Parole Board’s final decision issued October 15, 2013.
- Crossno filed his petition for judicial review on December 9, 2013.
- The Jefferson County Circuit Court dismissed the petition; Crossno appealed pro se and filed motions to extend time for his brief and to supplement/rename the record.
- The Supreme Court considered timeliness under the APA, failure to state a due-process claim, and sovereign-immunity barriers to suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under APA §25-15-212 | Crossno argued the Parole Board’s final decision was October 15, 2013, making his Dec. 9 filing timely | Board argued the relevant final decision had been served earlier and Crossno’s petition was filed after the 30-day window | Petition untimely; filed more than 30 days after service and therefore barred under the APA |
| Due-process entitlement to parole | Crossno claimed denial/reversal of parole violated due process | Board contended there is no constitutional right to parole | Held: No protected liberty interest in parole; no due-process claim stated |
| Sovereign immunity (suit against State/official in official capacity) | Crossno sought review that would control Board action | Board maintained suit was effectively against the State and barred by sovereign immunity | Held: Suit is effectively against the State; sovereign immunity bars the action and no applicable exception pleaded |
| Relief sought and procedural motions | Crossno sought extension and to supplement/rename record on appeal | Board had no objection noted; court must first resolve jurisdictional/merit defects | Appeal dismissed as meritless; Crossno’s procedural motions rendered moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr. Records Dep’t, 2012 Ark. 342 (timeliness under APA starts at service)
- Cridge v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 153 (no constitutional right to parole; due-process protection not invoked)
- Michalek v. Lockhart, 292 Ark. 301, 730 S.W.2d 210 (parole entitlement principles)
- Bd. of Tr. v. Burcham, 2014 Ark. 61 (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional; pleadings determine jurisdiction)
- Ark. Dep’t of Cmty. Corr. v. City of Pine Bluff, 2013 Ark. 36 (limits and exceptions to sovereign immunity)
- Brown v. Ark. State HVACR Lic. Bd., 336 Ark. 34, 984 S.W.2d 402 (suit against official in official capacity is suit against the office/State)