In re Parole of Haeger
813 N.W.2d 313
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Gleicher, J. reviews Haeger’s parole grant by the Michigan Parole Board (Board).
- The Board granted parole after Haeger served ~17 years of a 15–30 year sentence for burglary and criminal sexual conduct.
- Prosecutor sought leave to appeal; circuit court reversed the Board for abuse of discretion based on declining parole probability.
- This appeal focuses on regulatory noncompliance: no psychological evaluation after 1993 despite Rule 791.7715(5) for predatory/assaultive offenses, and unclear TAP/Parole plan in record.
- There are record gaps: no TAP in file, no corroborating in-reach services documentation, and a 2008 COMPAS scoring inconsistency (later explained as a software error).
- Court ultimately affirms reversal on different grounds: the Board failed to defer until psychological evaluation and failed to maintain a complete record; the Board may again consider parole after proper documentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory compliance for evaluation | Haeger’s release violated Rule 791.7715(5) due to no recent psychological eval. | Board relied on other assessments and records. | Regulatory noncompliance; record incomplete, justifying reversal. |
| Obligation to defer parole decision | Board failed to defer pending evaluation and TAP development. | Board exercised discretion despite gaps. | Board violated duty to defer until evaluation and TAP were developed. |
| Adequacy of record for review | Holes in file hinder meaningful review; remand required. | Record inconsistencies could be reconciled by Board panels. | Record incomplete; circuit court reversal upheld for lack of adequate record. |
| Due process and separation of powers | Parole grant without hearing on remand violates due process; judiciary cannot compel release. | No automatic right to parole; hearing not required in this procedural posture. | No due process violation; proper framework: review under governing rules. |
| Judicial standard of review and deference | Board’s discretion abused by selective evidence. | Board’s determinations within range of reasoned decisions. | Abuse of discretion found on regulatory grounds, not on deference to prior panels. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elias v Parole Bd, 294 Mich App 507 (2011) (parole guidelines framework and regulatory considerations)
- Jones v Dep’t of Corrections, 468 Mich 646 (2003) (parole decision discretion and standard of review)
- Hopkins v Parole Bd, 237 Mich App 629 (1999) (remand/review framework; separation of powers)
- Morales v Parole Bd, 260 Mich App 29 (2003) (appellate review of parole decisions; abuse of discretion)
- Glover v Parole Bd, 460 Mich 511 (1999) (need for sufficient explanation to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Morrissey v Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process rights in parole revocation context)
- Greenholtz v Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (parole release expectations and due process limits)
- Schultz v. People, 435 Mich 517 (1990) (sentencing factors include rehabilitation and societal protection)