In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of Jayson Loren Edward Bush

193 P.3d 103 (Wash. 2008) · Supreme Court of Washington · October 2, 2008 · No. No. 79834-6

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that due process protections attach to revocation of a conditional commutation because the recipient has a liberty interest in avoiding revocation absent violation of the commutation's conditions. Although Jayson Bush was denied an opportunity to be heard, the court dismissed his personal restraint petition because he failed to show that the procedural violation actually and substantially prejudiced him. The court also rejected his substantive due process claim, concluding that the governor's actions were not arbitrary or conscience-shocking.

Holdings

  1. A recipient of a conditional commutation has a cognizable liberty interest in avoiding revocation when the commutation specifies a condition whose violation is required for revocation; therefore, due process protections attach to revocation.
  2. Bush's procedural due process rights were violated because he was deprived of his protected liberty interest without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  3. Bush was not entitled to relief because he failed to make a prima facie showing that the denial of process actually and substantially prejudiced him.
  4. The governor's revocation of Bush's conditional commutation did not violate substantive due process.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether due process protections attach to the revocation of a conditional commutation.
  2. Whether the governor's failure to provide Bush an opportunity to be heard violated procedural due process and entitled him to relief on personal restraint review.
  3. Whether the governor's revocation of the conditional commutation violated substantive due process.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (23)

  • In re Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234, 164 P.3d 1283 (2007)(followed)
  • Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S. Ct. 2384, 162 L. Ed. 2d 174 (2005)(followed)
  • Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 10-11, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979)(followed)
  • In re Pers. Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wash. 2d 138, 144, 866 P.2d 8 (1994)(followed)
  • Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 465, 101 S. Ct. 2460, 69 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1981)(followed)
  • Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 482, 484-90, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972)(followed)
  • Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 781-82, 93 S. Ct. 1756, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1973)(followed)
  • Pope v. Chew, 521 F.2d 400, 404-05 (4th Cir. 1975)(followed)
  • Soundgarden v. Eikenberry, 123 Wash. 2d 750, 768, 871 P.2d 1050 (1994)(followed)
  • Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court