Utah Supreme Court
What due process protections apply when parole boards consider unconvicted sexual conduct? Neese v. Parole Board Explained
Summary
Michael Neese was denied parole largely because he refused to participate in sex offender treatment, despite never being convicted of a sex offense. The Parole Board based its determination that Neese was a sex offender on allegations from a dismissed charge that resulted in a mistrial. The district court granted summary judgment for the Parole Board on Neese’s due process claims.
Analysis
In Neese v. Parole Board, 2017 UT 89, the Utah Supreme Court addressed what due process protections apply when parole boards consider unconvicted sexual conduct in making release decisions. The case involved an inmate who was denied parole largely because he refused to participate in sex offender treatment, despite never being convicted of a sex offense.
Background and Facts
Michael Neese pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, theft, and burglary after his trial for forcible sodomy ended in a mistrial. He received a sentence of two to thirty years. During his parole hearings, the Parole Board questioned Neese extensively about allegations that he had sexually assaulted his friend’s daughter—the same allegations from the dismissed charge. When Neese denied the allegations and refused to participate in sex offender treatment, the Board denied him a release date twice, citing his “denial or minimization of responsibility” for conduct he was never convicted of committing.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the Parole Board’s procedures violated Neese’s due process rights under article I, section 7 of the Utah Constitution. The court had to determine what procedural protections are required when a parole board effectively adjudicates an inmate guilty of an unconvicted sexual offense for purposes of parole decisions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the framework from Labrum v. Utah State Board of Pardons, which held that original parole grant hearings are analogous to sentencing hearings and require due process protections. The court emphasized that when the Parole Board considers unconvicted sexual conduct, it is “sitting as a judicial fact-finder” and effectively trying the inmate for an offense of which he was never convicted. The court held that due process requires: (1) timely, particularized written notice that allegations of unconvicted sexual offenses will be decided; (2) the opportunity to call witnesses; and (3) a written decision adequately explaining the basis for determining the inmate is a sex offender.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly enhances procedural protections in parole hearings involving unconvicted conduct. Practitioners should ensure clients receive proper notice of any allegations the Board intends to consider, demand the right to present witnesses and evidence, and insist on detailed written explanations of any adverse findings. The decision also highlights the importance of understanding how plea agreements may affect later parole proceedings and the unique challenges posed by sex offender classifications based on unconvicted conduct.
Case Details
Case Name
Neese v. Parole Board
Citation
2017 UT 89
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20150487
Date Decided
December 14, 2017
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Before the Parole Board may take an inmate’s refusal to participate in sex offender treatment into consideration in deciding whether to grant parole based on unconvicted sexual offenses, due process requires: (1) timely, particularized written notice that allegations of unconvicted sexual offenses will be decided; (2) the opportunity to call witnesses; and (3) a written decision adequately explaining the basis for determining the inmate is a sex offender.
Standard of Review
Constitutional issues, including questions regarding due process, are questions of law reviewed for correctness. On summary judgment, all factual inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party as a matter of law, and summary judgment on a due process issue is reviewed only for correctness.
Practice Tip
When representing clients in parole hearings where unconvicted sexual conduct may be considered, ensure the Parole Board provides particularized written notice of the allegations, demand the right to call witnesses unless safety concerns preclude it, and insist on a written decision explaining the factual basis for any sex offender determination.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.