Stevens v. Bludworth

02/21/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
Case Number: OP 22-0750
7: - 7)
OP 22-0750
Fr=3 2 1 2"3
BRADLEY K. STEVENS,
C. - Court
.v;omana
Petitioner,
v. ORDER
PETE BLUDWORTH, Warden,
Respondent.
Self-represented Petitioner Bradley K. Stevens has filed his second Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus, alleging illegal incarceration due to the rescission of his parole by the
Board of Pardons and Parole (Board).' In compliance with this Court's Order for a
response, the Departrnent of Corrections (DOC or the Department) responds that Stevens
is legally incarcerated and is not entitled to release.
Stevens states that he cannot get a straight answer to why he is still incarcerated.
He explains that the Board granted him parole in March 2022 and then he learned that his
Institutional Probation and Parole Officer (I.P.P.O.) told the Board about an investigation
concerning Stevens. Stevens provides that he appeared before the Board on December 13,
2022, and that the Board "took [his] parole for [hearsay] with no proof of anything." He
requests that his parole be reinstated. Stevens provides no supporting documentation.
The Department puts forth that Stevens's Petition should be denied and dismissed.
The Department points out that Stevens was kept in custody, serving three sentences at the
Crossroads Correctional Center, when he was granted parole with various conditions, such
as completing a cognitive-based program and no misconduct. Providing the corresponding
I See Stevens v. Bludworth, No. OP 22-0654, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 1112, Order (Dec. 6, 2022) (this
Court determined that the Board's authority under its rules allows rescission of parole when the
offender is still in custody).
attachments, the Department states that Stevens received notice about the rescission
hearing; that he appeared before the Board in person, and that he received a written case
disposition. The Department explains that his due process rights were not violated and that
the Board properly rescinded his parole because Stevens was the subject of a new criminal
investigation. See § 46-23-218(1), MCA, and Admin. R. M. 20.25.601(1)-(5) (2022).
Further, the Department provides that the Montana Rules of Evidence do not apply to the
Board's proceedings. McDermott v. McDonald, 2001 MT 89, ¶ 20, 305 Mont. 166, 24
P.3d 200. The Department acknowledges that while the Board was under the mistaken
impression that Stevens had charges filed against him, there are no charges, but the
investigation continues. The Department posits that the Board's broad discretion allows it
to rescind a prior grant of parole upon learning about new evidence or information that
reveals an offender is not entitled to release. See McDermott, ¶ 25 ("[T]he Board retains
extremely broad discretion to determine when the statutory criteria for early release have
been met."). The Department concludes that Stevens received all the process he was due.
We agree with the Department's explanation. Stevens has not shown how the Board
violated his rights. Stevens has not demonstrated illegal incarceration or restraint. Section
46-22-101(1), MCA. He is not entitled to irnmediate release. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Stevens's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Bradley K. Stevens personally.
DATED this 01,V14/- day of February, 2023.
Chief Justice
2
.
/eG.e_,.
3.--..".
Justices
3