Washington v. U.S. Parole Commission
859 F. Supp. 2d 21
D.D.C.2012Background
- Petitioner Anthony Washington was sentenced in 1996 to consecutive DC terms for PFCV and robbery; parole released later with prior revocations.
- Petitioner was paroled on Oct 5, 2011 and had a projected supervision through Feb 23, 2022.
- Petitioner faced new charges in MD and has been in custody since Jan 2012.
- Petitioner challenged the Parole Commission’s authority, sentence calculations, and defense counsel conduct.
- Court construes petition as raising five issues and denies relief.
- No basis found to support habeas relief; petition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coercion claim at expedited revocation trial | Washington alleges coercion and inducement by counsel. | Proceedings are administrative; no full due-process/criminal-trial rights or counsel requirement. | No entitlement to counsel or due-process violation in parole revocation. |
| Parole Commission’s authority and separation of powers | Parole Commission lacks authority to revoke/parole; separation of powers violated. | Parole authority exists under DC law and case law; agency may grant/deny/revoke parole. | Parole Commission validly reviews and revokes parole under applicable law. |
| Abolition of the Commission and Article III status | DC Council/Constitution questions about Commission's longevity and chair status. | Congress extended the Commission’s existence. | Congress extended the Commission; issue resolved in favor of validity. |
| Consecutive vs. concurrent sentence calculation | BOP miscalculated as concurrent; argues improper calculation. | Superior Court imposed consecutive terms; BOP correctly applied. | BOP correctly calculated as consecutive as imposed. |
| Forfeiture of street time credits | Street time credits unlawfully forfeited; retroactivity of amendment questioned. | Forfeiture permitted; amendment retroactivity limited; 2010 offense fits statute. | Forfeiture lawful; 2009 amendment not retroactive to pre-amendment period; 2010 case could invoke forfeiture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation procedures survive due process scrutiny)
- Thompson v. District of Columbia Dept. of Corr., 511 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2007) (parole revocation is administrative, not criminal trial)
- Maddox v. Elzie, 238 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (parolee rights and counsel considerations in revocation)