Bobby Sneed v. Tim Hooper, Warden

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 07, 2021
Second Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
BOBBY SNEED
VS.
TIM HOOPER, WARDEN
No.2021-KK-01776
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Bobby Sneed - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) C-711804, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2021 CW 1460;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 07, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents.
Crain, J., dissents.
McCallum, J., dissents.
JLW
JDH
JTG
PDG
12/07/2021 "See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2021-KK-01776
BOBBY SNEED
vs.
TIM HOOPER, WARDEN
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit,
Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
Factually and lega lly, this matter presents in a complicated and complex
manner and is, therefore, dependent for resolution on its own unique circumstances.
Petitioner, who was granted parole and scheduled for release on March 29, 2021, was
hospitalized after collapsing on March 25, 2021. Upon his discharge from the
hospital, he was not released, but returned to prison. In connection with the March
25 incident, petitioner was issued a disciplinary report for violating a conduct rule
barring contraband, but following a hearing before the Louisiana State Penitentiary
Disciplinary Board on May 5, 2021, petitioner was found "not guilty" of possessing
contraband. Nonetheless, on May 7, 2021, a member of the Committee on Parole
executed a single-member action to rescind the Committee's prior decision.to grant
petitioner's application for parole.
"The conditions of parole as well as the granting or revocation thereof rest in
the discretion of the [Committee on Parole], whose decisions generally cannot be
appealed." Bosworth v. Whitley, 627 So.2d 629, 631 (La. 1993) ( citing La. R.S.
15:574.11 ). The rules adopted by the Committee on Parole provide for rescission of
a prior grant of parole pursuant to a single-member action. See, La. Admin. Code
Title 22, Part XI, § § 504(K), 5 l 3(A). However, here the Committee did not act to
12/07/21

rescind petitioner's parole prior to his release date. As a result, petitioner ryas held
in physical custody after his release date.
Petitioner's limited liberty interests attached once his release date passed. See.
Morrissey v. Brewer,408 U.S. 471 ,482 (1972). Forthat reason, we find rescission
was not available here. Rather, procedural due process dictates that petitioner was
entitled to a revocation hearing rather than a rescission of parole. The denial of that
hearing is appealable. La. R.S. 15:574.11.
Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeal is reversed, and this rnatter is
remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
2