Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of William Robert Null’s petition challenging the Arkansas Board of Parole’s denial of parole and reconsideration. The court held that Null failed to plead facts establishing a constitutional violation or supporting declaratory relief, and that mandamus was unavailable because the Board’s parole decision was discretionary. The court also noted that there is no constitutional right to parole.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Null pleaded sufficient facts to establish a constitutional violation or other claim supporting judicial review or declaratory relief from the Board's denial of parole.
- Whether the circuit court erred in denying a writ of mandamus when the Board's parole decision was discretionary.
Holdings
- Null's speculative allegations that the Board failed to follow statutory criteria were insufficient to state a claim for constitutional or declaratory relief.
- Mandamus was properly denied because the Board's parole decision was discretionary.
Key quotations
“We have held that "there is no constitutional right to parole."” (567 S.W.3d at 483)
Factual background
The Arkansas Board of Parole denied Null parole on March 28, 2017, primarily based on the seriousness of his crime, and denied reconsideration on May 15, 2017. Null alleged that the Board failed to follow governing statutory criteria and regulations, violated due process by failing to consider established criteria, and failed to prescribe corrective action under Arkansas Code section 16-93-615(a)(2)(B). The Board indicated that Null could obtain a more complete explanation through the institutional parole officer, but the record did not show that he pursued that option.
Procedural history
Null challenged the Arkansas Board of Parole's denial of parole and denial of reconsideration. The circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that Null failed to state a constitutional claim warranting judicial review or injunctive relief and denying mandamus because the Board's decision was discretionary. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed.