Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anselmo v. Bisbee

Supreme Court of Nevada

June 29, 2017

MICHAEL P. ANSELMO, Petitioner,
v.
CONNIE BISBEE, CHAIRMAN; SUSAN JACKSON, TONY CORDA, ADAM ENDEL, COMMISSIONERS; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE, Real Parties in Interest.

         Original petition for extraordinary relief requesting the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to deny parole partially based on an inapplicable aggravating factor.

          Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and Kirk B. Lenhard and Emily A. Ellis, Las Vegas, for Petitioner.

          Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Conner, Assistant Solicitor General, and Daniel M. Roche, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Real Parties in Interest.

          BEFORE HARDESTY, PARRAGUIRRE and STIGLICH, JJ.

          OPINION

          STIGLICH, J.

         Generally, an inmate does not have any protectable due process or liberty interest in release on parole, unless that right is created by state statute. Given the clear discretionary language of Nevada's parole statute, this court has consistently held that Nevada inmates have no protectable liberty interest in release on parole. Accordingly, this court will not disturb a determination of the Nevada Parole Board (Board) to deny parole for any reason authorized by regulation or statute.

         Nonetheless, eligible Nevada inmates do have a statutory right to be considered for parole by the Board. When the Board clearly misapplies its own internal guidelines in assessing whether to grant parole, this court cannot say that the inmate received the consideration to which they are statutorily entitled. Therefore, under the limited circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that a new parole hearing is warranted.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         In 1972, appellant Michael P.. Anselmo was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He sustained subsequent convictions for escape in 1976 and 1977, and was sentenced to a consecutive ten years for each conviction.

         For the next twenty years, Anselmo largely became a model prisoner. In 2006, the Pardons Board commuted his sentences to life with the possibility of parole after five years, with one concurrent ten-year sentence, and one consecutive ten-year sentence.

         Between 2006 and 2012, Anselmo appeared before the Parole Board on three separate occasions. Each time, the Board denied parole, primarily citing to the seriousness of Anselmo's underlying offense and/or the impact of his offense on the victim.

         Anselmo appeared before the Parole Board for the hearing at issue on November 17, 2014. Pursuant to the standards promulgated in the Nevada Administrative Code, the Board completed a Parole Risk Assessment, which assigned Anselmo's offense a "severity level" of "[h]ighest, " and Anselmo a "[r]isk [s]core" of "[l]ow, " indicating that the Board should consider certain aggravating and mitigating factors in determining whether parole was appropriate.

         As mitigating factors, the Board noted that Anselmo had not committed a disciplinary infraction since 2007, had community or family support, would be paroled to his pending escape sentence, and had participated in extensive educational programming. As aggravating factors, the Board noted the impact on the victim and/or community, that Anselmo had sustained two convictions for escape while incarcerated, and that the "[n]ature of criminal record is increasingly more serious: Previous offenses are property crimes."

         The three hearing members who conducted the parole hearing recommended granting parole. That recommendation was not, however, ratified by a majority of the Board, as the remaining four Board members voted to deny parole. The Board's written decision indicated that the "[n]ature of criminal record is increasingly more serious" and the "[i]mpact on victim(s) and/or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.