Hayes v. Parole Board
312 Mich. App. 774
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Nathan Hayes was convicted in 1996 of armed robbery, conspiracy, and felony-firearm and sentenced to concurrent 20–30 year terms plus a consecutive two-year felony-firearm term.
- His calendar minimum release date was July 5, 2017, but his net minimum date (after disciplinary credits) was October 2, 2013; the net date is uncontested.
- Hayes repeatedly requested parole consideration beginning in 2008; the Parole Board repeatedly refused to consider him and did not interview him or prepare a parole eligibility report after his net minimum date passed.
- Hayes sought relief from the Kalamazoo sentencing judge, who concluded he lacked authority to give the Board jurisdiction; the Board was not a party to that proceeding.
- Hayes filed a mandamus action in circuit court to compel the Parole Board to consider him for parole; the trial court denied relief and Hayes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hayes is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the Parole Board to consider him for parole after his net minimum date | Hayes: Once net minimum date passes, Board has a ministerial duty to consider/interview him and prepare a parole eligibility report without prior judicial approval | Board: MCL 769.12(4)(a) makes Hayes ineligible for parole until the sentencing judge or successor gives written approval, so Board has no duty to consider him | Court: Board had clear statutory duty under MCL 791.234 and MCL 791.235 to assume jurisdiction, interview, and prepare a report after net minimum date; mandamus appropriate to compel consideration |
| Whether mandamus is improper because of statutory ambiguity between MCL 791.234 and MCL 769.12 | Hayes: Statutes read together show Board’s duty to consider before any judicial approval for grant of parole | Board: The interplay is ambiguous so no clear legal duty exists to support mandamus | Court: Statutes are not ambiguous; Board’s duty to consider is clear and separable from judge’s later approval for actual parole grant |
| Whether Hayes should have appealed the sentencing judge’s prior ruling instead of seeking mandamus | Board: Hayes could have appealed judge Giguere’s decision on jurisdiction | Hayes: That decision did not involve the Board and appeal would not have compelled Board action | Court: Appeal would have been improper path; mandamus against the Board is the correct remedy because the Board failed to perform its statutory duties |
| Procedural bar under prison-conditions statute (MCL 600.5507) | Board: Appeal should be dismissed under MCL 600.5507 | Hayes: His claim challenges parole consideration/duration, which is excluded | Court: MCL 600.5507 inapplicable; claim is not a barred prison-conditions action |
Key Cases Cited
- Younkin v Zimmer, 497 Mich 7 (standard of review for mandamus and statutory interpretation)
- Vorva v Plymouth-Canton Community Sch Dist, 230 Mich App 651 (mandamus elements; may compel exercise of discretion but not its manner)
- Rental Properties Owners Ass’n of Kent County v Kent County Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498 (definition of clear legal right/duty)
- People v Morey, 461 Mich 325 (statutory construction—start with text)
- Johnson v Recca, 492 Mich 169 (give effect to every word in statute; avoid surplusage)
- People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (read statutes in context for harmonious construction)
- Menard Inc v Dep’t of Treas, 302 Mich App 467 (in pari materia canon)
- People v Armisted, 295 Mich App 32 (definition/meaning of parole)
- Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Ed (On Remand), 293 Mich App 506 (mandamus is extraordinary remedy)
- Phillips v Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan, 153 Mich App 557 (mandamus appropriate to compel parole consideration)