Can inmates waive due process rights in parole hearings by failing to request continuances? Stewart v. Board of Pardons and Parole Explained

In Stewart v. Board of Pardons and Parole, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the boundaries of due process rights in parole proceedings, particularly when inmates receive documents shortly before their hearings.

Background and Facts
Calvin Stewart was serving prison terms following 2003 convictions on twenty-five felony counts requiring over six million dollars in restitution. Stewart filed a rule 65B petition claiming various constitutional violations, including that he was denied due process because the Board of Pardons and Parole provided him with some evidence documents just prior to his January 16, 2014 parole hearing. The district court dismissed most claims as frivolous but allowed the due process claim to proceed before granting summary judgment for the Board.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Stewart’s due process rights were violated when he received additional documents from victims immediately before his parole hearing. The court had to determine what constitutes adequate notice and whether an inmate can waive objections to timing issues.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Peterson v. Utah Board of Pardons to establish that while inmates must receive adequate notice and copies of information the Board will rely upon, the Board is not required to continue hearings when inmates expressly state they are ready to proceed. Stewart received most documents weeks in advance and had at least thirty minutes to review additional materials. Crucially, he told the hearing officer he was “ready to get started” and never requested additional time. The court held that inmates bear the burden of requesting continuances when they need more time to review materials.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that procedural due process in parole hearings requires active participation by inmates and their counsel. Practitioners must be vigilant about explicitly requesting continuances when clients receive documents close to hearing dates, as silence or acquiescence can constitute waiver of due process objections. The ruling also confirms the limited scope of rule 65B proceedings—constitutional challenges to underlying convictions must proceed under rule 65C post-conviction procedures.