Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Anthony Davey’s habeas corpus petition challenging the Department of Corrections’ revocation or interruption of his community-reentry furlough. The Court held that 28 V.S.A. § 724(c) provided an adequate alternative avenue for review, including review of alleged due process violations, and therefore habeas relief was unavailable. The Court nevertheless criticized the Department’s significant procedural deficiencies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether habeas corpus was an appropriate vehicle to challenge DOC’s revocation or interruption of Davey’s community-reentry furlough when 28 V.S.A. § 724(c) provided an alternative avenue for judicial review.
- Whether § 724(c) permitted the reviewing court to consider alleged due process violations in DOC’s furlough proceedings.
- Whether Davey’s arguments concerning suspension of habeas corpus and the trial court’s alleged constitutional error could be reviewed when raised for the first time on appeal or in a reply brief.
Holdings
- Habeas corpus does not generally substitute for appellate review, and Davey could not proceed by habeas petition because 28 V.S.A. § 724(c) provided an available alternative avenue to challenge his community-reentry furlough interruption.
- Section 724(c) is not limited to reviewing DOC’s discretionary furlough decision without regard to due process; a court reviewing the decision may consider whether DOC violated due process.
- The court declined to review Davey’s argument that § 724 suspended the writ of habeas corpus because it was raised for the first time on appeal, and it declined to review his constitutional-suspension argument because it was raised for the first time in his reply brief.
Key quotations
“However, habeas relief “does not generally provide a substitute for appellate review.”” (¶ 14)
“We do not think § 724(c) is so limited, and we agree with the trial court that nothing in § 724(c) precludes a court from reviewing whether a denial of due process occurred.” (¶ 17)
“The facts petitioner alleges—many of which the State does not dispute—reveal a bureaucracy that comes very close to the sort of “procedural mockery” we have previously warned against.” (¶ 22)
Factual background
Davey, who was serving a life sentence for sexual-assault convictions, was placed on community-reentry furlough in April 2017. After he missed meetings with his parole officer and violated curfew in March 2019, DOC placed him on absconded status and issued a warrant; he was arrested in October 2020. DOC failed to provide a timely furlough-violation hearing, later conducted delayed and procedurally deficient case-staffing and hearing processes, and ultimately imposed a one-year furlough interruption. Davey filed a habeas petition rather than pursuing the statutory appeal available under 28 V.S.A. § 724(c).
Procedural history
After DOC revoked or interrupted Davey’s community-reentry furlough following his arrest, Davey filed a habeas petition in the Rutland Civil Division. The civil division dismissed the petition, concluding that 28 V.S.A. § 724(c) provided an alternative avenue for review and that the alleged procedural deficiencies did not warrant habeas relief. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.