I am writing to request an investigation is commenced under CRIPA, 42 USC 1997.

Transcription

1 Cheryl L. Kates PC Attorney at Law PO Box 734 Victor, NY (585) May 17, 2012 US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Criminal Section- PHB Washington DC, NY Re: NYS DOCCS Constitutional Violations re: NYS Department of Corrections and Conlnlunity Supervision (Parole) Failure to Comply with Due Process. Request for Investigation. Dear Sirs, I am writing to request an investigation is commenced under CRIPA, 42 USC CRIPA allows the US Department of Justice to step in protecting vulnerable populations housed in state prisons. The scope of inquiry is to determine whether there are violations of constitutional or federal law. The Civil Rights Division reviews whether a pattern or practice of unlawful behavior or conditions depriving individuals confined in prison their constitutional rights exists. In the past, this Division responded when I filed a complaint regarding the treatment of inmates at Auburn Correctional Facility. I am asking you once again respond. On or about March 31, 2011, the state of New York due to budgetary reasons merged the NYS Department of Corrections and the NYS Division of Parole forming the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Flagrant violations of due process and violations of constitutional rights are occurring in both parts of the combined agencies. This portion of my complaint will IIPage

2 focus on the NYS Board of Parole. A separate complaint will be filed addressing issues at the NYS Department of Corrections. parole release: PAROLE AND RISK ASSESSMENTS NYS EXECUTIVE LAW 259 (i) NYS Executive Law 259 (i) (2) (c) (a) defines criteria used to review an applicant for "Discretionary release on parole shall not be granted merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties while confined but after considering if there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his crime as to undem1ine respect for the law. In making the Parole release decision the procedures adopted pursuant to subdivision four of section two hundred fifty-nine (c) this article shall require that the following be considered: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) The institutional record including program goals and accomplishments, academic achievements, vocational education, training or work assignments, therapy and interactions with staff and inmates; Performance if any, as a participant in a temporary release program; Release plans including community resources, employment, education and training and support services available to the inmate; Any deportation order issued by the federal government against the inmate while in custody of the department pursuant to section one hundred and forty-seven of the Correction Law; Any statement made to the Board by the crime victim or the victim's representative, where the crime victim is deceased or mentally or physically incapacitated; The length of the determinate sentence to which the inmate would be subject had he or she received a sentence pursuant to section or section of the Penal Law for a felony defined in article two hundred twenty or article two hundred twenty-one of the Penal Law; The seriousness of the offense with due consideration to the type of sentence, length of sentence and recommendations of the sentencing court, the district attorney, the attorney for the inmate, the pre-sentencing probation report as well as consideration of any mitigating or aggravating factors, and activities following arrest prior to confinement; and Prior criminal record, including the nature and pattern of the offenses, adjustment to any previous probation or parole supervision and institutional confinen1ent... " NYS Executive Law 259 (i) (2) (c) (a) 21 P a

3 On October 5, 2011, Andrea Evans, Chairwoman of the Board of Parole issued a memorandum to the Parole Board interpreting these changes. She states: "Through the enactment of Chapter 62 of the laws of 2011, Part C, subpart A, 38-(b) Executive Law 259-(c) (4) was amended to provide that the Board of Parole shall: "Establish written procedures for its use in making Parole Board decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the Board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release and assist members of the state Board of Parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision. As you know, menlbers of the Board have been working with staff of the Department of Corrections and Community supervision in the development of a transitional accountability plan (TAP). This instrument which incorporates risk and needs principles will provide a meaningful measurement of an inmate's rehabilitation. With respect to the practices of the Board, the TAP instrument will replace the inmate status report that you have utilized in the past when assessing the appropriateness of an inmate's release to parole supervision. To this end, members of the Board were afforded training in July 2011, in the use of a TAP instrument where it exists. Accordingly as we proceed, when staff have prepared a TAP instrument for a parole eligible innlate you are to use that document when making your parole release decisions... It is also important to note that the Board was afforded training in Septerrlber 2011, in the usage of COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment tool to understand the interplay between that instrument and the TAP instrument, as well as understanding what each risk levels mean... Therefore, in your consideration of the statutory criteria set forth in Executive Law 259 (i) (2) (c) (a) (i) through (viii) you must ascertain what steps an inmate has taken toward their rehabilitation and the likelihood of their success once released to parole release supervision. In this regard any steps taken by an inmate toward effecting their rehabilitation in addition to all aspects of their proposed release plan are to be discussed with the inmate during the course of their interview and considered in their deliberations." (Available at 31 P a

4 Penal Law. NYS PENAL LAW 1.05 (6) The NYS Penal Law 1.05 (6) indicates the purposes of the general provisions of the It states: "To insure public safety by preventing the commission of offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized, the rehabilitation of those convicted, the promotion of their successful productive reentry and reintegration into society and their confinement when required in the interest of public protection" NYS Penal Law 1.05 (6) A memorandum was issued in relation to the merger of the NYS Department of Corrections and Parole. The memo states: "The Parole Board will maintain its existing functions; DOCCS is required to implement an offender transition accountability plan that includes an integrated team case management plan based on a research based risk-assessment tool; DOCCS will consist of two operational components, the Parole Board and the non-parole Board activities; Both components are designed to provide all appropriate services for all offenders from entry to release and from release to discharge; DOCCS staff will continue to provide information and assistance to the Parole Board such as... preparing the documents for an offender's Parole Board hearing; Re-entry will be expanded to better incorporate services previously provided separately by DOCS and Parole" (NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, website, 2011). At a hearing before Assemblyman Aubry and the Committee on Correction, November 10, 2011, Chairwoman Evans testified the use of these procedures (risk and needs assessments) would begin January 1, 2012 (COMPAS) and July 1, 2012, (TAP) (see cherylkatesesq.com, document is lengthy and can be viewed along with testimony given regarding these issues). Despite the enactment of the law the Division of Parole continues to operate as usual. In fact, they are flagrantly denying due process by refusing to reverse parole decisions where they failed 411'

5 to administer the "risk and needs" assessment. The courts have issued varied decisions on whether this issue is retroactive, whether they only had to do them after October 1, 2011, or whether they can just do what they want. What is happening here as stated, the Division of Parole does not want to reverse thousands of parole decisions. It is upon information and belief, the Division knows if they stall a period of (12-24 months) all of these people who have this claim under the law will re-appear at the Parole Board nlaking the claim moot so they won't have to give them their due process rights. It is upon information and belief, the Division knows if they don't answer the appeals in a timely manner the issue will become moot after a re-appearance. It is upon information and belief, the Division knows that many inmates will not proceed on Article 78, and it is unlikely in the (12-24 month) time frame they will be able to nlove up through the courts to the Appellate Division or the NYS Court of Appeals because the timing won't permit it. So, it is upon information and belief, the Division is running things at Parole "business as usual" trampling on the rights of thousands of inmates and violating their right to due process by ignoring the current law and precedent decisions. What also is being ignored is the former statute which was applicable at the time prior to October 1, 2011 indicated even then the Parole Board "may" use risk and needs principles. The only difference is the statute now reads the Parole Board "shall" use "risk and needs" principles. In examining this issue, it is important to look at the legislative intent. Amended April 7, 2009, originally on this issue, NYS Executive Law 259 (c) (4) stated in reference to the Parole Board's duties: "Establish written guidelines for its use in making Parole Board decisions as required by law, including the fixing of minimum periods of imprisonment or ranges thereof of different 51 P age

6 categories of offenders. Such written guidelines may consider the use of a risk and needs assessment to assist nlembers of the state Board of Parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision." NYS Executive Law 259 (c) (4) Eliot Spitzer, under executive order, formed the NYS Sentencing Committee in The Sentencing Conlmission filed a final report summarizing their findings while studying sentencing and criminal justice practices. This report states: "The cornerstone of evidence-based practices is the use of a validated risk and needs assessment instrument. Such an instrument can help supervising agencies accurately assess the risk posed by an offender, identify the personal deficits that have contributed to an offender's criminality, and capitalize on an offender's strengths during the re-entry process" (NYS Sentencing Commission, 2009). Furthermore, the report states: "Risk is largely assessed based on "static" characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of re-arrest such as age, gender, and crinlinal history... That is when practitioners use these instruments they are much more likely to accurately predict who will succeed and who will fail under regular supervision than if they rely on professional judgment alone" (NYS Sentencing Commission). Amended again in the budget in 2011, NYS Executive Law 259 (i) (c) (4) indicated that the Parole Board must re-write the guidelines and incorporate the use of a risk and needs assessment in their decision-making process. On October 5, 2011, Andrea Evans issued a memorandum to the Parole Board interpreting these changes. She states: "Through the enactment of Chapter 62 of the laws of 2011, Part C, subpart A, 38- (b) Executive Law 259- ( c) (4) was amended to provide that the Board of Parole shall: "Establish written procedures for its use in making Parole Board decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release and assist members of the state Board of Parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision" 61 P a g

7 As you know, members of the Board have been working with staff of the Department of Corrections and Community supervision in the development of a transitional accountability plan (TAP). This instrument which incorporates risk and needs principles, will provide a meaningful measurement of an inmate's rehabilitation. With respect to the practices of the Board, the TAP instrument will replace the inmate status report that you have utilized in the past when assessing the appropriateness of an inmate's release to parole supervision. To this end, members of the Board were afforded training in July 2011, in the use of a TAP instrument where it exists. Accordingly as we proceed, when staff have prepared a TAP instrument for a parole eligible inmate you are to use that document when making your parole release decisions... It is also important to note that the Board was afforded training in September 2011, in the usage of COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment tool to understand the interplay between that instrument and the TAP instrument, as well as understanding what each risk levels mean... Therefore, in your consideration of the statutory criteria set forth in Executive Law 259 (i) (2) (c) (a) (i) through (viii) you must ascertain what steps an inmate has taken toward their rehabilitation and the likelihood of their success once released to parole release supervision. In this regard any steps taken by an inmate toward effecting their rehabilitation in addition to all aspects of their proposed release plan are to be discussed with the inmate during the course of their interview and considered in their deliberations". Again, the distinguishing factor is NOW the Parole Board is clearly violating the statutory mandate enacted by the legislature requiring the use of the" risk and needs" assessment. What procedural protections attach to the parole decision-making process? This my friend, is a different question than whether an inmate has a constitutional right to parole. Greenholtz clearly indicates there is NO constitutional right to parole release, Greenholtz v. Innlates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979). There is now a due process issue, when parole ignores the statutory mandate. This in itself establishes bias, irrational decision-making and most definitely "arbitrary and capricious" decisions. The process used for anyone at their Board hearing where they do not use "risk and needs assessments" is unquestionably done in violation of the statutory law, in violation of the rules established by Andrea Evans, and in violation of some case law (Orange Co.). The legislature may authorize an administrative agency to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation, 71 Pac

8 Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rivera, 12 N.Y. 3d 602 (2009); Mayfield v. Evans, 2012 N.Y. slip op (1 st Dep't, 2012). And an agency can adopt regulations going beyond the text of the legislation; provided the regulations are not inconsistent with the statutory language or its underlying purposes, Rivera, (id); Mayfield, (id). The agency CANNOT promulgate rules or regulations that contravene the will of the legislature and the express terms of the authorizing statute, Weiss v. City of New York, 95 N.Y. 2d 1 (2000). When evaluating this issue, it is based on pure questions of law, Mayfield, (id). No deference is given to the agencies' determination, Mayfield, (id). If a regulation runs counter to the clear wording of the statutory provision it should NOT be afforded any weight, Kurcsics v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 49 N.Y. 2d 451 (1980). The court acknowledges even a court cannot contort statutory language and elude legislative intent, Mayfield, (id); Brusco v. Braun, 199 A.D. 2d 27 (1 st Dep't, 1993). Neither can the Division of Parole. Parole arises after a criminal conviction so "the full panoply of rights" are not afforded, Mayfield, (id); Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). A prisoner that seeks to obtain future parole has no right to due process, since the interest is no more "substantial than the inmate's hope to not be transferred to another prison" which is also not a right protected by due process, Greenholtz, (id). The Parole Board is negligent and acting outside their scope of authority. They did not start the use of "risk and needs" assessments or TAP plans as indicated they shall. At a hearing before NYS Assemblyman Aubry November 10, 2011, Chairwon1an Evans testified these procedures would begin January 1, 2012, (COMPAS) and July 1, 2012, (TAP). Even this was a violation of the law (see website). 81Page

9 This is a pattern of behavior, denying thousands of inmates' due process rights. The Division's behavior is so flagrant, they are in violation of the law even in facilities where they employed the COMPAS risk assessment in a pilot program. In Fernandez v. NYS DOCCS, currently pending in Albany Co. court as an Article 78 (Index No., ), Richard Fernandez was an inmate housed at Orleans CF, where the COMPAS risk assessment were being used in the pilot program. He was given a risk assessment prior to his Parole Board hearing in August He appeared at the Board with the risk assessment and was denied parole in November An administrative appeal was filed on that matter and the decision was affirmed by Commissioners Smith. Ludlow and Brown on April 14, The decision stated in regards to the use of the risk assessment: "In response, the COMPAS evaluation is not used by the Board of Parole as part of the interview process". Andrea Evans, Parole Chairwoman, and Brian Fischer, Commissioner testified before the NYS Legislature on November 10,2011 regarding the use of COMPAS by the NYS Departnlent of Corrections and Community Supervision. Brian Fischer stated: "Reentry, clearly a major issue, and we can go into that in detail after Chairman Evans speaks, how do we implement the TAP as you indicated and more importantly how do we also implement the COMPAS? Both are key elements to the reentry process, both will have some dramatic impact on, on staff, on how we approach issues, how we assign offenders on supervision, how we get offenders ready for the Parole Board, The TAP and COMPAS I think will ultimately provide us, the profile that everybody's been looking for. Part of the problem or part of the concern we have on COMPAS is the feeling we, we will use the COMPAS to assign caseload. And this is really based on research and reality. Other states have done this. We're going to be using the COMPAS, which is a research based instrument to make assignments. And clearly in its most basic ternls, we want to assign the high risk people who we know are most likely to recidivate to the lowest caseload ratios, and the lower risk persons who we can identify should be put on caseloads at a higher rate. It's really not-it's what we believed it should be. Now we have some instruments and I support that. 91 P e

10 Again, the the emphasis that I think the, the new agency is being working on significantly in TAP and COMPAS are the key elements, is that we are research based. We are looking at what works" (see Transcript on website). Chairwoman Evans states: "As for the Board's development of written procedures to be used when making release decisions, in July 2011, each member of the Board received training in the use of the TAP instrument. And in September 2011, all of the members received training in the use of the risk and needs instrument known to all of us as COMPAS. Currently the use of these instruments is being piloted in three of the Department's correctional facilities for the purpose of establishing appropriate conditions of supervision. When the pilot phase for these instruments is concluded, the Board looks forward to their use when assessing the appropriateness of an inmate's release to community supervision. Because the TAP instrument indicates an inmate's overall effort toward effecting his or her rehabilitation while incarcerated and draws upon information closely associated with their risk of re-offending and in needs in order to become successful, the Board's written procedures will call for the use and careful consideration of these documents" (see Transcript). This testimony was given in November This is after the fact and when the legislation mandated the use of the risk and needs assessments and TAP but as it is stated DOCCS is not following the law. By the Chairwoman and Commissioner's own testimony THEY ARE NOT USING THE REQUIRED TOOLS to make Parole Decisions even after the law went into effect. As stated, in Fernandez, who was in the pilot program at Orleans CF in his administrative appeal denial rendered by Parole: "The COMPAS evaluation is not used by the Board of Parole as part of the interview process" (see Fernandez). In the Fernandez matter the "risk and needs" assessment indicated he was a "low risk" of recidivating requiring supervision status 4 (the lowest). Yet, he was still denied Parole. His parole release decision rendered by Commissioner Ferguson and now Senator Gallivan states: "Despite receipt of an earned eligibility certificate, parole is denied after a careful review of your record, a personal interview and deliberation. Your institutional record and release plans are 10 IP a g

11 noted. This panel remains concerned, however, about your unlawful conduct and the gravity of your instant offense of Manslaughter second degree, wherein you shot and caused the death of another human being which when considered with required and relevant factors suggests that if released at this time there is a reasonable probability that you would not live and remain at liberty without violating the law and your release at this time is incompatible with the welfare and safety of the community, making discretionary release inappropriate at this tin1e" All inmates are afforded due process. Something needs to be done to enforce the law. Correctional officials need to be stopped fron1 blatantly ignoring the law. As I testified to the Committee on Corrections: "Laws are just words on paper unless someone enforces them" (Legislative Hearings, 2011). FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE RECORD Additionally, there is a trend where the facility parole officers do not adequately prepare the inmate's parole file prior to their Parole Board. They fail to contact the defense attorneys to obtain an official statement allowing only the prosecutor and sentencing judge to render an opinion on whether the inmate shall be released: (See: Hayes, Bottom, Evans, Allah etc.) DIN No. provided upon request. When notified they have provided erroneous information regarding the COM PAS or Inmate Status Report they refuse to correct the information prior to the inmate's Parole Board (see: Mercado, Trama, Allah, Chianese, O'Connor). Additionally, they refuse to review or obtain the inmate's plea minutes and pre-sentencing memorandums filed by the defense attorney's to place in the file for the Board's review (see: Pignato (Albany Co., and Marszalek, Orange Co., pending on Article 78). IMPROPER ACTIONS REGARDING PAROLE APPEALS Additionally, the Division of Parole is violating due process and constitutional rights in the manner they are dealing with parole appeals. 111 P g

12 Chairwoman Evans testified at the legislative hearing: "As for the counsel's office, this unit now serves as the exclusive legal advisors to the Board. A key responsibility shouldered by the attorneys and support staff in this unit is to review and process the administrative appeals taken from decisions either denying inmate's release to parole or revoking their release status. This office continues in its efforts to process appeals in a timely and most independent manner" (see Legislative Hearings, 2011). This writer testified in response to this assertion at the same hearing: "So the thing I want to talk to you about is basically involving the merger, but the problem was there long before the merger and it continues on afterward. And there's two basic principles that it revolves around; One, the lack of due process afforded to inmates and the lack of accountability to the Board of Parole. One word comes to my mind after listening to Andrea Evans testify to your questions earlier, and in regards to the appeals unit, and that is that it was pure poppycock and nothing less. And I can support that because it's not just my personal opinion. I have data, and I've provided them to you in a digital format because it's quite more than a Bible what I've given you... The other packet that was submitted was some documents that support everything that I'm trying to tell you today, so nobody can say I'm not telling you the truth because I've given you the documents. And my clients, who I roughly represent 100 people, have all signed waivers to their attorney-client privilege to allow you and anyone else in the legislature full access to my documents and files in my office if you want to review thenl, which that will be proof of what you need. The proof in the pudding is documents. In regards to the lack of due process, I've given you some numbers. These were given to me in regards to a Freedom of Information request on letter head from Parole and I've given you a copy of that document. And when you hear these numbers I would hope that you would be disgusted when you hear thenl. Andrea Evans testified earlier to you that the counsel's office one responded to appeals in a timely fashion, which that is not true. And gave some alludement that there was due process in this process, which is also not true. In order to give you the figures, the FOIL request I received said: "In 2007, there were 5,315 administrative appeals filed" meaning appeals in regards to parole denials. "The Parole Board reversed 85 cases" That's it. And the rest of them were either affirmed, made moot because the inmate reappeared at Parole, which is usually in a 24 month period, so a two year period, meaning they did not get an answer, and they went back to their Board so they didn't have an issue anymore, or the inmates filed Article 78's, which they have the right to do after 120 days when they aren't answered. 121 P age

13 So that's 2007, so we know that they reversed 85 cases out of 5,000 and something, so my question is what happened to the other cases? They didn't answer them. That's what happened to them. Now 2008, this is even better. There was 6,123 appeals filed and the Parole Board reversed 36 cases of 6,000. So where's the rest of those cases? And we have 2009, 4,897 appeals filed and they reversed 64 cases. So that should make everyone question what happened to the rest of these cases? Now why is that important? One. you're denying someone due process. The problem is the inmates have-they either can get hit with 12 months, 18 months or 24 months before their next appearance of they are denied parole. Usually, it's a 24 month period handed out, and that's a two year period. Now if we file an Article 78, that comes later after we get an answer from Parole, if we do. The inmate's have 120 days to file their appeal after they've been seen at the Board. That usually doesn't happen in 120 days because we have to wait for the transcript from parole to be provided and that takes usually four to six weeks. Then we start trying to file the appeal. Once its filed they have 120 days to answer the appeal. I can tell you from my experience in nine years of doing this that the practices at the Counsel's Office is that they will not even look at your appeal until the 120 days have expired. When you call to check on your cases you are told that the 120 days aren't up and they haven't even reviewed them yet. So they're not even looking at them before that time frame has expired at all. I have some cases in my office right now that have been pending for 17 months. There's no need for that... The problem with the numbers that we talked about is that probably a lot of those people are appearing pro se on their own behalf and they have no advocate. Nobody should go back to their Parole Board in a two year period without having their appeal answered. Once they reappear, any issue they raise becomes moot so they can't raise it" (see Legislative Hearings, 2011). DELAYS IN PROCESSING APPEALS The Department of Justice now has subpoena power under CRIPA. I request the Division of Parole is reviewed regarding their appeal process. Issues studied should include length of time appeals are processed, number of appeals that go unanswered, number of appeals filed as Article 78's due to being unanswered, and the disparate number of appeals that are actually reversed. Specific cases which were held over the 120 days in my office include: A. Bottom 77A-4283; currently pending since October 2010, despite grounds for reversal He will re-appear in June 2012; B. Green filed 9/30/11; S. Germenis filed 12/15/11; J. 131 P g c

14 Gordon filed 11/22/11; R. Paltoo filed 12/2/11; A. Rodriguez filed 10/4/11; It should be noted in all of these appeals there is the issue of the inmate not being given the risk assessment. PAST DECISION OVER 120 DAYS (see Figueroa; DeSanna; Talley; Allah (previous decision appeal); Hernandez; Pitcher; etc.(din No. provided upon request) There is a problem when an agency systemically denies due process. This matter must be investigated. FAILURE TO PROCESS APPEALS CORRECTLY In reviewing appeals, the Parole Board allows denial decisions to stand even when they reviewed erroneous information (See Lila and Fernandez). In Lila, despite being given evidence (transcripts from the trial) the victims were not upstanding citizens as they were made out to be in the parole hearing transcript but instead convicted felons; the Board affirms their decision. Additionally, despite reviewing this case not based on facts that were true but instead on erroneous information the Board brushes it off as "harmless error". The Division indicated "providing them accurate information re; the victim" was demonizing the victims. In the Fernandez case, the Commissioner argues with the defendant in the Parole Board hearing because he doesn't believe his version of what happened in the instant offense. Despite having sentencing minutes etc., that confirmed the story the inmate told, the Commissioner didn't believe him (see Fernandez). Additionally, there was an error in the inmate status report. The jail time computation is incorrect on the decision. Parole on its decision paperwork indicates the jail time Fernandez served in prison is 79 months. The jail time is marked at 26 days in jail. The correct time of incarceration at the time of his appearance was indicated on the inmate status report where it is stated he served 82 months. This is almost a year discrepancy. 141 g e

15 Chairwoman Evans states again at the legislative hearing: "As for the parole decision making process, the Board n1enlbers continue to receive the high quality reports that have been prepared by former Division of Parole staff, which are essential to this undertaking. Having accurate information about an offender's criminal history, crime of conviction, institutional adjustment, programming and release plans is still indispensable if we are to expect the Board to make fair and appropriate release decisions. And in this regard as an independent body, we fulfill that portion of our new mission. Our new mission is to ensure public safety by granting parole when appropriate under the governing standards. Since the merger, the Board of Parole has been working closely with the department in the development of that transitional accountability plan also known as TAP. While this document is intended to be utilized by DOCCS staff for a variety of reasons, for example institutional programming and the development of community supervision plans, it will be the instrument that will measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the Board as well as their likelihood of success in the community when released" (see Legislative Hearings, 2011). IMPROPER ACTIONS RE: JUVENILE SENTENCES Juvenile Offenders were given a lesser sentence such as (5-life) and (9-life). In NYS they are being held the equivalent of what adult offenders received (25-life) and over. There are some offenders in NYS sentenced as juveniles that are still in prison after 30 years. The criminal statute allowing their detention on a lesser charge was not enacted so they would serve adult sentences. There are separate guidelines for juveniles. This is rarely evaluated and juveniles are assessed as Adult Offenders. (see: Creamer, Ubiera). IMPROPER ACTIONS RE: MENTAL HEALTH Additionally, there seems to be an "unwritten policy" for offenders suffering from mental health issues or medical issues at the time of their conviction wherein they are denied parole based on their conditions (see Germenis, Cox; and Chianese). These matters need to come to light. These inmates deserve due process. I have testified before the legislator, filed court proceedings etc. This system needs to be investigated. 151 P age

16 CONCLUSION As stated, Parole is not safeguarding due process. They are running things "business as usual". They are ignoring the law. They are not administering risk assessments. They are failing to review appeals in a timely manner. They are refusing to reverse valid appeals and are relying on erroneous information in their decision making. The big picture is a systemic failure for inmates across the state housed in corrections. Correctional officials have been notified of all violations complained of and they do nothing to correct them. This system needs an overhaul. It is proven the NYS legislature can do nothing to stop them. They write laws and parole and correctional officials ignore them. The courts have trouble providing relief due to statutory wording allowing discretion. NYS needs to be investigated by the federal government and forced to comply with due process rights for the incarcerated. No one else can do anything. Please commence an investigation immediately. Additional information can be provided to substantiate all claims upon request. REFERENCES w\\'w.chervlkatesesq.colti NYS Sentencing Commission Final Report (2009). NYS Legislative Hearings, (November 10, 2011). Committee on Corrections. 16\ P a g