recognizing that probationers legally are in custody although not confined in a penal institution
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that probationers legally are in custody although not confined in a penal institution
- holding that judicial review of a parole revocation decision is by writ of certiorari
- “[T]he basic requirements of due process and fairness require that the department provide a limited hearing to allow petitioners to be confronted with their probation violation and to be heard if they so desire.”; “The type of hearing we refer to is a factual hearing relating to the grounds of revocation so that, on review, it can be determined whether the department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in ordering revocation.”
- “It is well established in this state that where there are no statutory provisions for judicial review, the action of a board or commission may be reviewed by way of certiorari . . . [a] petitioner’s right of review of a revocation hearing is by certiorari directed to the court of conviction.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). The first full paragraph beginning on page 548 of the opinion has been modified by striking the second sentence in that paragraph.
The paragraph is to read as follows:
“We do not here attempt to spell out in detail the specific procedural characteristics of the revocation hearings to be held by the department. The type of hearing we refer to is a factual hearing relating to the grounds of revocation so that, on review, it can be determined whether the department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in ordering revocation.”
The motions for rehearing are denied without costs.