People v. Abdul-Rahman.
2024 COA 118. No. 23CA0486. Parole Revocation Proceedings—State Board of Parole—Appeals to Board’s Appellate Body—Judicial Review.
October 31, 2024
Abdul-Rahman was convicted of sexual assault, and the trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 20 years to life on sex offender intensive supervision probation in accordance with the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act. The court later found that Abdul-Rahman violated his probation conditions, and it revoked the probationary sentence and resentenced him to four years to life in prison. Abdul-Rahman was eventually released on parole but was subsequently arrested and charged with third degree assault (the case was subsequently dismissed). Around the same time, Abdul-Rahman was unsuccessfully terminated from his sex offender treatment program. Abdul-Rahman’s parole officer filed a revocation complaint. The State Board of Parole (board) found that Abdul-Rahman violated his parole conditions and revoked it. Abdul-Rahman then filed a Crim. P. 35(c)(2)(VII) motion arguing, as relevant here, that his parole had been unlawfully revoked because he did not have the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses at the parole violation hearing and was not permitted to cross-examine his parole officer. The post-conviction court summarily denied the motion.
As a threshold matter on appeal, the People argued that Abdul-Rahman’s appeal was not properly before the court of appeals because he was statutorily required administratively appeal the parole revocation decision with the board before initiating judicial review of the decision. The court determined that the applicable statutes do not require a parolee to pursue an administrative appeal of a parole revocation decision before seeking judicial review under Crim. P. 35(c)(2)(VII). Rather, under CRS § 17-2-103(2)(b), appeal to the board’s appellate body is permissive.
On the merits, Abdul Rahman contended that an evidentiary hearing should have been held on his Crim. P. 35(c) motion because he alleged facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief from the parole revocation. He maintained that the board improperly denied him the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence and to cross-examine his parole officer, and but for these errors, the board would not have revoked his parole. However, Abdul-Rahman’s motion did not identify the parole conditions the board found him to have violated or the boards’ reasons for deciding to revoke his parole. Accordingly, even accepting Abdul-Rahman’s assertions as true, the court could not determine whether he would be entitled to relief from the alleged errors.
The post-conviction court’s order denying Abdul-Rahman’s Crim. P. 35(c) motion was affirmed.