Kelch v. Director, Nevada Department of Prisons

Citations: 822 P.2d 1094; 107 Nev. 827; 1991 Nev. LEXIS 187Docket: 21078

Court: Nevada Supreme Court; December 6, 1991; Nevada; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert Maxwell Kelch appeals the revocation of his commutation by the Nevada Board of Pardons Commissioners. In 1985, Kelch was sentenced to twenty years for second-degree murder and, after two years, sought a commutation from the Board. The Board granted his request on May 12, 1987, after hearing testimonies from Kelch and his attorney, alongside a letter from the sentencing judge that took no position on the commutation. The Nye County District Attorney was notified but did not object at that time. Subsequently, the District Attorney filed a motion for reconsideration, leading to a hearing on November 23, 1987, where both sides presented arguments. The Board ultimately voted 6-1 to rescind the commutation and reinstate the original sentence.

Kelch pursued a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, which was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. He then filed for a writ in state court, which was also denied. In his appeal, Kelch argues that the Board's rescission of his commutation violated his due process rights. The court analyzes whether Kelch had a protected liberty interest and, if so, whether he received adequate due process in the Board's proceedings. The due process clause applies only if a liberty interest is at stake, necessitating a review of the protections afforded in the Board's actions.

The key issue is whether the Board's actions deprived Kelch of a protected liberty interest. The Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer established that procedural protections relate to the severity of loss an individual faces. It was noted that revoking a parolee's liberty constitutes a grievous loss, necessitating some procedural safeguards. However, the Court in Jago v. Van Curen determined that a grievous loss alone does not create a protected liberty interest if the individual never received the promised benefit—in that case, the prisoner was never actually paroled. 

In Ellard v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, the court found that a protected liberty interest existed when the prisoner had been granted parole, despite the revocation following public outcry. The court emphasized that if a state confers a right, that right has substantive value and can only be revoked with due process. The distinction was made that in Jago, the benefit was never realized by the prisoner, whereas in Ellard, the prisoner had received a form of parole.

Applying these principles, it was concluded that Kelch had a protected liberty interest due to the Pardons Board's order commuting his sentence from 20 years to five years. Unlike Jago, Kelch actually received this commutation on May 12, 1987, thereby creating an interest with real substance. Consequently, the loss of this interest requires adherence to due process protections for revocation.

Kelch has a protected liberty interest granted by the Pardons Board, which raises the issue of whether his due process rights were violated during the revocation of his commutation. The U.S. Supreme Court emphasizes that due process is flexible and requires procedures tailored to the situation, notably the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. In a similar case, McLaughlin v. Bronson, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a prisoner received adequate due process when the Board provided notice, a hearing, representation by counsel, the ability to confront witnesses, and a written statement of reasons for revocation. 

In Kelch's case, the Board similarly provided due process by notifying him of the revocation hearing, allowing him to appear with counsel, present evidence, and confront witnesses against him. Although the Board's decision was not formally written, members articulated their reasons on the record. Consequently, Kelch was afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and thus, due process was satisfied. The district court's order was affirmed. Justice Steffen concurs, noting unique aspects of Nevada's clemency process as discussed during the 1863 Constitutional Convention, which aimed to balance the powers of pardon among the Governor, Chief Justice, and Attorney General.

The Executive's power to impose restrictions aims to enable the removal of pardoned criminals from the State, thereby addressing public safety concerns. Historical records from the 1863 Constitutional Convention reveal that the original proposal to grant pardon power solely to the Governor was amended to include the Governor, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General, requiring majority rule for decisions. This structure has been in place since Nevada's statehood in 1864. Current proposals seek to amend the constitution by removing Supreme Court Justices from the Board of Pardons, justified by claims of their busy schedules and potential conflicts of interest. However, the argument regarding busy schedules is dismissed, as the Board only meets twice a year and requires minimal preparation time. Furthermore, the need for careful consideration of clemency powers is emphasized, given the social costs associated with criminal penalties. The dissenting justices argue that having Supreme Court Justices on the Board creates inherent conflicts of interest, but this perspective is rejected. It is asserted that there is no conflict in the dual roles of justices, as the Supreme Court does not have a vested interest in upholding convictions and routinely evaluates its own decisions in a separate capacity.

Supreme Court Justices have a duty to uphold the law and maintain public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. Conflict of interest claims regarding the Justices’ roles on the Board of Pardons are unfounded, as the Justices do not review their own decisions but rather the Board's decisions, where they act as separate members. The dissenting opinion incorrectly asserts that a conflict arises from this dual role. Previous cases, such as Goldman v. Bryan and In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, established that Justices can perform both administrative and judicial functions without disqualification based on perceived conflicts. An impartial judge can fairly adjudicate matters even when they have previously participated in related decisions. The potential political implications of Board decisions should not deter Justices from fulfilling their responsibilities, which have successfully served Nevada for over 125 years. Justice Young, dissenting, asserts that the Board lacked jurisdiction to rescind a sentence commutation.

Kelch acquired a protected liberty interest in his release once the Board issued an effective order, thus divesting the Board of jurisdiction to rescind the commutation unless Kelch violated the conditions of his release. The majority acknowledges that this interest vested on the effective date of the order and emphasizes that the Board can only revoke release under limited circumstances. A revocation decision begins with assessing whether the parolee violated release conditions; only if a violation is found can the Board consider recommitment or other actions. In this case, since Kelch did not violate any conditions, the Board lacked the authority to recommit him, and it could not revoke his release based on newly discovered information post-commutation. The majority's argument that Kelch received adequate procedural due process does not address the core issue of the Board's jurisdiction. The majority cites McLaughlin v. Bronson, which is distinguishable as it involved misrepresentation, whereas Kelch's situation pertains to new information rather than any falsehoods. The author critiques the inherent conflict of interest if Supreme Court Justices serve on the Board of Pardons and concludes that the Board lost jurisdiction to revoke Kelch's release once the order took effect, absent a violation of conditions or misrepresentation, thereby violating Kelch's substantive due process rights.