Roach v. Ky. Parole Bd.
553 S.W.3d 791
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Phyllis Roach pled guilty in 2002 to one count of second-degree sodomy for conduct occurring 1987–1991 and received 10 years imprisonment plus a three-year conditional discharge under KRS 532.043.
- KRS 532.043 (postincarceration sex-offender supervision) did not exist until July 15, 1998, so applying it to Roach’s pre-1998 offense was later held to be an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.
- After release in 2011 Roach was charged with violating postincarceration supervision; an ALJ and the Parole Board found probable cause and revoked the conditional discharge, ordering her to serve the remaining term.
- Shelby Circuit Court granted Roach habeas relief, finding the Meade Circuit Court’s imposition of KRS 532.043 void ab initio and ordering her release; Roach then sued the Parole Board for wrongful incarceration.
- The Board of Claims dismissed her tort suit as outside its jurisdiction (no recovery for discretionary acts); Franklin Circuit reversed, finding gross negligence; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Parole Board immune for quasi-judicial/discretionary acts. The Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of KRS 532.043 on pre-1998 offense was lawful | Roach: statute did not apply; retroactive application is ex post facto | Commonwealth: statute was applied by trial court and alleged violations could be enforced | Court: retroactive application was unconstitutional; Shelby Court correctly granted habeas relief (statute could not be applied to Roach) |
| Whether Parole Board may be liable for wrongful incarceration | Roach: Board negligently enforced an unconstitutional sentence—ministerial fact inquiry, so Board of Claims has jurisdiction | Parole Board: revocation hearing was quasi-judicial/discretionary; absolute immunity; Board of Claims lacks jurisdiction over discretionary acts | Court: Board’s revocation hearing was quasi-judicial/discretionary; KRS 49.070(2) did not waive immunity; Board has absolute immunity; affirm Court of Appeals |
| Scope of judicial review for agency findings | Roach: (implied) Board misapplied law and facts | Board: agency fact-finding entitled to deference; legal issues reviewed de novo | Court: agency fact findings get deference but legal questions reviewed de novo; here classification of act as discretionary is a legal determination supporting immunity |
| Whether negligent performance of revocation duties is ministerial | Roach: deciding applicability of statute was routine/factual and ministerial | Parole Board: adjudicatory duties require investigation, hearings, judgment—discretionary | Court: parole revocation involves investigation, hearing, weighing evidence—quasi-judicial and discretionary, not ministerial |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013) (agency factfinding gets deference; questions of law are for courts)
- Kentucky Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n v. Estill Cnty. Fiscal Court, 503 S.W.3d 924 (Ky. 2016) (legal questions in agency orders are reviewed de novo)
- Buck v. Commonwealth, 308 S.W.3d 661 (Ky. 2010) (ex post facto analysis under state and federal constitutions)
- Purvis v. Commonwealth, 14 S.W.3d 21 (Ky. 2000) (ex post facto prohibition bars retroactive increase in punishment)
- Jefferson Cnty. Com. Attorney's Office v. Kaplan, 65 S.W.3d 916 (Ky. 2001) (construction of statute determines allocation of absolute immunity)
- Collins v. Commonwealth, Ky. Nat. Res. & Envtl. Prot. Cabinet, 10 S.W.3d 122 (Ky. 1999) (Board of Claims cannot provide recovery for negligent performance of discretionary acts)
- Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, Dep't of Highways v. Sexton, 256 S.W.3d 29 (Ky. 2008) (ministerial vs. discretionary distinction depends on policy-making and significant judgment)
- Marson v. Thomason, 438 S.W.3d 292 (Ky. 2014) (discretionary acts include quasi-judicial and policy decisions)
- Bolden v. City of Covington, 803 S.W.2d 577 (Ky. 1991) (definition and scope of quasi-judicial powers)
- Dean v. Byerley, 354 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.) (absolute immunity extends to state officials performing adjudicative/parallels to judicial functions)