24 A.3d 235
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Appellant John Wayne McLaughlin-Cox pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder in 1988 and received concurrent 30-year sentences.
- Parole hearing occurred July 17, 2002; MPC’s form listed factors to consider, but the hearing-recommendation area contained only the handwritten word 'REFUSE'.
- McLaughlin-Cox sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming due process violations and failure to follow Maryland CS provisions; district court dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds and lack of liberty interest.
- On October 23, 2009, he petitioned the Maryland circuit court for a writ of mandamus directing a new parole hearing and removal of records.
- The circuit court (July 2, 2010) denied the petition, holding MPC complied with CS §7-307(c)(2) and that the federal suit’s order barred due process claims as res judicata.
- McLaughlin-Cox appealed; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, concluding Maryland parole does not create a federally protected liberty interest and the petition for mandamus was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Maryland's parole scheme create a liberty interest protected by due process? | McLaughlin-Cox argues CS7-305/7-307 create a due process liberty interest. | MPC contends no liberty interest exists; parole determinations are discretionary. | No liberty interest; due process claims fail. |
| Did MPC violate CS7-307(c)(2) by failing to provide a written report within 30 days? | McLaughlin-Cox asserts failure to issue timely written findings. | MPC’s compliance with CS7-307(c)(2) is at issue; findings were not timely. | Procedural violation acknowledged; not remanding or expunging records required. |
| Is the due process claim barred by res judicata due to the federal court proceedings? | McLaughlin-Cox contends the state hearing process deprived him of due process. | Federal court order of dismissal and Eleventh Amendment rationale preclude merits. | Yes; due process claims barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parolee has a qualified liberty interest requiring due process)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (statutory language can vest a liberty interest in parole)
- Thompson v. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (explicit mandatory language is not the sole determinant of a liberty interest)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (due process rights focus on protected liberty interests, not mere restraints)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011) (reaffirms Greenholtz: no due process right to parole absent a protectible interest)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983) (parole and confinement issues involve state-created liberty interests with due process limits)
- Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987) (parole decisions implicate liberty interests when state creates them)
- Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492 (1988) (federal court noted lack of legitimate liberty interest in parole for Maryland inmates)