Opinion
OP 22-0222
05-24-2022
RICHARD F. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. PETE BLUDWORTH, Warden, Crossroads Correctional Center, Respondent.
ORDER
Richard F. Reynolds has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, indicating that the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board or BOPP) should have granted him parole. He further indicates that the Board violated his due process rights with its denial. Reynolds requests immediate parole to his home in Bozeman, Montana, or to Overland Park, Kansas.
In June 2014, the Gallatin County District Court sentenced Reynolds to prison for six consecutive ten-year terms for six felony convictions: operating a pyramid promotional scheme (Ponzi scheme); theft by embezzlement; failure to register as a securities salesperson; failure to register a security; and two counts of fraudulent practices. Reynolds appealed, and this Court affirmed. State v. Reynolds, 2017 MT 25, 386 Mont. 287, 387 P.3d 243.
Reynolds raises many constitutional claims concerning his conditions of confinement and custodial placement in prerelease that are not remedied by a writ of habeas corpus. See Gates v. Missoula Cnty. Comm'rs, 235 Mont. 261, 262, 766 P.2d 884, 884-85 (1988). This Court will address Reynolds's arguments about the parole denial.
Reynolds explains that he should have been awarded parole because "when an inmate completes a Pre-release program it is expected he will receive parole[.]" He states that "due to my health issues [exasperated by lack of medical care while incarcerated], and the inability and/or unwillingness of the Pre-releases to accommodate [his] disabilities[] [he] didn't get a chance." Reynolds further alleges that the Board relied on false statements from a victim's advocate in reaching its decision.
Reynolds has not shown that the Board violated his due process rights. "There is, no absolute standard for what constitutes due process." McDermott v. McDonald, 2001 MT 89, ¶ 10, 305 Mont. 166, 24 P.3d 200. "[T]he United States Supreme Court has held that due process is satisfied when the prisoner seeking parole is, at a minimum, provided with an opportunity to be heard and a written statement explaining why he was denied parole." McDermott, ¶ 11 (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebr. Penal Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2108 (1979); Sage v. Gamble, 279 Mont. 459, 465, 929 P.2d 822, 825 (1996)). This Court has articulated that in a parole hearing, while the due process protections are less stringent than a criminal proceeding in a court of law, the protections do exist and are defined by two main elements: an appearance, or opportunity to be heard, and written notice of the Board's decision." McDermott, ¶ 11. "It is well established that a parole release determination is not subject to all the due process protections required to convict or confine. . . ." McDermott, ¶ 11 (citation omitted).
Reynolds includes copies of the Board's case dispositions for administrative review, appearances, and reappearances, since 2018. In December 2021, the Board denied his parole and rescheduled him for December 2022. The Board's reasons were: "nature and severity of the crimes, multiple crimes, pattern of similar crimes, need for a structured reentry plan, strong objections from criminal justice authorities and community. Present plan including structured residential and aftercare support when reappear."
Reynolds sought reconsideration through a letter to the Board. On February 15, 2022, the Board addressed Reynolds's claims directly and denied his request for a rehearing/reconsideration. The Board points out that it did not rely on false information and stated:
The advocate did not submit any written opposition to your parole application in advance of the December 13, 2021 administrative review. The above-named private party did not submit any written opposition prior to the December 13th case review. During the December 13th case review, the BOPP considered offender management information records maintained by
the Montana Department of Corrections. The BOPP also considered a parole review compiled by a case manager at the Shelby prison. You signed each page of such report attesting to the accuracy of the included information. Prior to the December 13th review, you submitted a cover sheet and a 3-page parole plan for the BOPP's consideration. The record does not support a finding that the BOPP relied on erroneous/false information in rendering its December 13, 2021 disposition in your case. Specifically, the record does not show the BOPP relied on any information generated or solicited by the Gallatin County advocate, whether true or false.
Reynolds is not entitled to his immediate release or the granting of parole. "Parole ... is a discretionary grant of freedom from incarceration." McDermott, ¶ 24. This Court has stated many times that the Board has broad discretion in granting parole. "In Montana, the Board is specifically required to 'consider all pertinent information regarding each prisoner, including the circumstances of his offense, his previous social history and criminal record, his conduct, employment and attitude in prison, and the reports of any physical and mental examinations which have been made.'" McDermott, ¶ 20 (citing § 46-23-202, MCA, now codified as § 46-23-208, MCA (2021)).
Reynolds is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Reynolds has appeared before the Board, and the Board issued its decision and set forth its reasons for denying Reynolds parole. The Board reviewed Reynolds's letter for reconsideration, concluding that it did not rely on false information. He reappears in December 2022. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Reynolds's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Richard F. Reynolds personally.