The Arkansas Supreme Court has sided with the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board (the Board) in a case involving Charles Hamner, who was denied parole. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Hamner’s petition, citing a state law that prevents inmates from challenging parole decisions through judicial review.
The Core of the Dispute
Hamner, currently serving a lengthy sentence for crimes committed in 2012 and 2013, sought judicial review of the Board’s denial of his parole. He argued that the Board had violated the Arkansas Constitution and several state laws when they transferred him from the Arkansas Division of Community Correction (ADCC) back to the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) and subsequently denied his parole. Hamner claimed this transfer and denial violated his rights.
The Legal Roadblocks
The main legal issue revolves around the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA generally allows individuals to seek judicial review of agency decisions. However, a specific section of the APA, Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-212(a), explicitly bars inmates from using this process to challenge parole decisions. The court highlighted that this law prevents inmates from seeking judicial review of parole denials.
Hamner’s Arguments
Hamner attempted to overcome this legal hurdle by arguing that a specific state law, Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-93-615(a)(2)(B), created a “liberty interest” in parole. He contended that this law limited the Board’s discretion, essentially guaranteeing parole under certain circumstances. Hamner argued that because his crimes did not fall under the list of offenses that would prevent a parole, he was entitled to review of his parole denial. Additionally, he alleged that he was denied due process when the ADCC determined, without conducting a hearing, that he had failed to maintain good behavior.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court rejected Hamner’s arguments. They cited previous court decisions that have consistently held that Arkansas statutes do not create a liberty interest in parole. The court emphasized that the Board’s decisions regarding parole are discretionary. The court stated that the Board may parole inmates incarcerated with the ADC “when in the board’s opinion there is a reasonable probability that the inmate can be released without detriment to the community or himself or herself and is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen.” The court found that this language clearly grants the Board discretion in making parole decisions, thus not creating any liberty interest for the judiciary to review.
The Consequences of the Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of Hamner’s petition, effectively denying him the opportunity to challenge the parole denial through the judicial system. Furthermore, the court also upheld the lower court’s assessment of a strike against Hamner, meaning he must now pay full filing fees for any future lawsuits, due to previous frivolous filings.
Justice Womack’s Concurrence
Justice Shawn A. Womack, while agreeing with the court’s decision to dismiss Hamner’s lawsuit, offered a concurring opinion. He argued that the circuit court should have dismissed the lawsuit based on sovereign immunity, which protects the state from lawsuits. Justice Womack stated there are no constitutional exceptions to lawsuits against the state challenging parole denials under the APA.
In Simple Terms
In essence, the court ruled that because the Board has the discretion to grant or deny parole, inmates like Hamner cannot use the APA to appeal those decisions. Hamner’s attempts to argue for a different outcome were unsuccessful, and the court affirmed the dismissal of his case.