Curtis v. Chester
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24172
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- Curtis, a federal prisoner, challenged a parole revocation and 15-year above-guidelines reconsideration date via 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- He was convicted of first-degree felony murder in 1976, received a life sentence, and was parole-eligible.
- Curtis was released on parole in 2002, then assaulted a female victim; he pled guilty to assault as part of a plea agreement, and related charges were dismissed.
- The Parole Commission revoked his parole based on the assault conviction and claimed an attempted rape occurred, plus a pattern of violent behavior not fully captured by guidelines.
- Curtis objected to the presence of one adverse witness and the absence of another, but the victim could not be located for cross-examination.
- The board concluded Curtis posed a danger and issued an above-guidelines reconsideration date of 15 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation right at revocation: admissibility of hearsay | Curtis argues victim's absence violates confrontation. | Board relied on reliable, detailed police report and alternatives to live testimony. | No Sixth Amendment right applies; due process balancing supports admission. |
| Use of dismissed charges in revocation | Evidence of dismissed charges improperly used to prove violation. | Dismissed charges admissible if probative and by preponderance standard. | Admissible; no due process violation. |
| Double counting | Board relied on 2002 incident for guidelines and above-guidelines sentence. | Pattern of conduct can justify above-guidelines distinct from guideline calculation. | Not improper double counting; within the board's discretion. |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing and tape production | Request for evidentiary hearing and discovery should be granted. | Habeas discovery is not automatic; no good cause shown to merit tapes. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process minimum at parole revocation includes confrontation where warranted)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (confrontation rights and evidence flexibility in revocation hearings)
- Kell v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 26 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 1994) (reliability vs. confrontation balancing framework)
- Peltier v. Booker, 348 F.3d 888 (10th Cir. 2003) (standard for review of parole-board decisions; de novo with deferential lens)
- McBride v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1997) (consideration of dismissed charges in revocation context; credibility concerns)