Cite as: 523 U. S. 1 (1998)
Opinion of the Court
placed in a drug treatment center. The report withheld making "an ultimate recommendation based on the alleged [rape and dangerous weapon] violations" until the prosecuting attorney's office had a chance to dispose of those charges. Id., at 76. "In the event formal charges are ultimately filed," it said, "a separate recommendation will be forthcoming." Ibid. Petitioner was never charged, but a September 14, 1992, followup report prepared by Institutional Parole Officer Peggy McClure concluded that "there [did] appear to be significant evidence that Spencer ha[d] violated the conditions of his parole as stated," and recommended that petitioner's parole be revoked. Id., at 64. Officer McClure's report is not mentioned in the Order of Revocation.
On being returned to prison, petitioner began his efforts to invalidate the Order of Revocation. He first sought relief in the Missouri courts, but was rejected by the Circuit Court of De Kalb County, the Missouri Court of Appeals, and, finally, the Missouri Supreme Court. Then, on April 1, 1993, just over six months before the expiration of his 3-year sentence, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U. S. C. § 2254, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging that he had not received due process in the parole revocation proceedings.1
1 Specifically, according to petitioner's brief, he contended: "1. The Board denied him his right to a preliminary revocation hearing on the armed criminal action accusation. . . .
"2. The Board denied him a hearing on the cancellation of his conditional release date.
"3. The Board . . . : "a. . . . denied him the right to confront and cross-examine any of the witnesses against him. . . .
"b. . . . gave him no notice that the entire case for revoking his parole would be the out-of-court statements in the violation report.
"c. . . . denied him the right to representation by a person of his choice. "4. The Board failed to apprise him of the fact of its decision to revoke his parole, and of the evidence it relied on in doing so, for four months, when its regulations required that . . . the parolee be provided [such a]
5
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007