Crowell v. Massachusetts Parole Board
477 Mass. 106
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Crowell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1962 and was sentenced to life with parole; in 1974 his sentence was commuted to "36 years to life." He has a traumatic brain injury (TBI) causing cognitive and behavioral deficits.
- Crowell was paroled in 1975 but returned to custody multiple times (last revoked in 2003); he has been incarcerated continuously since 2003.
- At a 2012 Parole Board review the board acknowledged Crowell's TBI and its effects but denied parole, citing lack of a concrete release plan, history of noncompliance, and combative attitude; reconsideration was denied.
- Crowell filed a certiorari action under G. L. c. 249, § 4 (Apr. 2014), alleging the Parole Board violated the ADA, Massachusetts art. 114, and G. L. c. 93, § 103 by relying on his disability and by scheduling five‑year reviews rather than annual ones.
- The Superior Court allowed the board's motion to dismiss; the SJC reversed, vacating dismissal and remanding for the administrative record to be filed and for resolution on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper when the Parole Board failed to file the administrative record before moving to dismiss | Crowell: dismissal improper because Standing Order requires agency to file administrative record first, and review must proceed on that record | Parole Bd: allowed to file Rule 12(b) motion before filing record; complied with deadlines | Court: dismissal vacated; agency must file administrative record and matter should proceed via motion for judgment on the pleadings under the standing order |
| Whether the Parole Board violated the ADA / state disability law by treating Crowell's TBI as a basis to deny parole | Crowell: board relied on disability and its effects, failed to consider reasonable modifications or assist in developing release plans, and thus discriminated | Parole Bd: decision considered many factors and disability was only one factor among others bearing on risk | Court: did not decide the merits; observed record suggests the board may not have adequately considered reasonable modifications and remanded for record development and further review |
| Whether the board must provide accommodations when mental disability impairs parole preparation | Crowell: board should provide reasonable modifications (e.g., expert assistance, help identifying programs) rather than place burden on disabled prisoner | Parole Bd: must balance accommodations against parole’s public‑safety role; can't fundamentally alter parole | Court: board must consider reasonable modifications when it knows disability affects preparation, unless modification would fundamentally alter parole; evidence needed on mitigation and risk |
| Whether Crowell’s commuted "36 years to life" sentence counts as a "life sentence" for parole‑review frequency | Crowell: commutation made sentence an indeterminate term governed by annual review rules | Parole Bd: maximum term is life, so § 133A (initial at 15 years, then every five years) applies | Court: held Crowell’s sentence remains a "life sentence" for § 133A purposes; five‑year review schedule applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA applies to parole proceedings and requires analysis whether prisoner is "otherwise qualified")
- Shedlock v. Department of Correction, 442 Mass. 844 (Mass. 2004) (state ADA-analog and accommodation principles for prisoners)
- Greenman v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 405 Mass. 384 (Mass. 1989) (Parole Board determinations afforded considerable deference)
- Connery v. Commissioner of Correction, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 253 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992) (sentence nature determined by maximum term; minimum fixes parole eligibility)
- Boston Medical Center Corp. v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health & Human Services, 463 Mass. 447 (Mass. 2012) (standard of review for motions to dismiss reviewed de novo)