Hertz v. Macomber, 297 P.3d 150

Hertz, convicted of second-degree murder in 1984, received a 40-year sentence with a 20-year parole eligibility restriction and no release conditions stated.
He sought an early furlough in 2009 but refused to sign paperwork imposing programs, arguing it would extend his sentence (double jeopardy) and violate due process.
Hertz was denied early furlough; he was later released on mandatory parole with special conditions including evaluations and treatment if recommended.
Hertz filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition challenging the constitutionality of mandatory parole and ex post facto implications in 2010.
Separately, he sued two DOC probation officers (Macomber and Simons) alleging due process violations by denying early furlough and imposing treatment conditions, seeking damages and declaratory relief.
The superior court dismissed the complaint; the Alaska Supreme Court limited its review to whether the DOC could impose furlough conditions not in the original sentence and whether that framework violates constitutional rights; the court affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can DOC impose furlough conditions not in the original sentence?	Hertz contends DOC lacks authority to impose non-sentence conditions.	Macomber and Simons argue DOC has statutory/regulatory authority to set furlough conditions.	Yes; DOC has authority to impose furlough conditions independent of original sentence.
Do the furlough/conditioning provisions violate ex post facto or double jeopardy?	Hertz claims ex post facto and multiple punishment.	DOC framework does not increase punishment or prolong the sentence.	No; no ex post facto violation or double jeopardy.
Does Hertz have a federally protected liberty interest in furlough triggering due process?	Hertz asserts a federal liberty interest in early furlough.	No constitutionally protected liberty interest exists in discretionary furlough.	No; federal due process rights do not apply to deny furlough.
Do Alaska due process rights facially violate in denying furlough conditions?	Hertz claims state due process rights are violated by furlough conditions.	Statutory/regulatory framework is consistent with statute authorizing furlough and safeguards.	No; framework does not violate Alaska due process.

State v. Felix, 50 P.3d 807 (Alaska App. 2002) (holding furlough lies within DOC discretion and is not limited to sentence terms)
James v. State, 244 P.3d 542 (Alaska App. 2011) (authority to impose and revoke parole inherent in a criminal sentence (distinguishable context))
Diaz v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 239 P.3d 723 (Alaska 2010) (due process not implicated where furlough denial does not prolong sentence; no state liberty interest)
Larson v. Cooper, 90 P.3d 125 (Alaska 2004) (state-law liberty interests; due process not triggered when conditions within sentence)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (limits due process to atypical, significant hardships; not here)
Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (due process limits on restraint beyond sentence)