Matter of Lopez v. Evans

In Matter of Lopez v. Evans (25 NY3d 199 [2015]), the Court of Appeals held "that when a parolee lacks mental competency to stand trial, it is a violation of his or her due process rights to conduct a parole revocation hearing." (Id. at 202.) Because the basis for the parole revocation in Lopez had been conduct for which he had been found unfit to stand trial, his counsel sought an adjournment to evaluate his mental condition. The application was denied and his parole was revoked. He commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking to annul the parole revocation on due process grounds. Although the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, the Appellate Division reversed, suggesting, in dicta, that the Parole Board's statutory power necessarily includes authority to determine, in accordance with due process, whether a parolee who has allegedly violated his or her conditions of release is mentally competent to participate in a violation proceeding. (See id. at 205.) In affirming, the Court of Appeals did not necessarily endorse that dicta. Instead, after establishing the principle that it would violate due process to have a parole revocation hearing during which the parolee could not meaningfully participate due to mental incapacity, the Court examined assorted matters of public policy, procedural difficulties and practical problems associated with this area. The Court did not presume to solve any of these issues by judicial fiat. Instead, the Court stated, "because the issue is not presented in this case, we express no view on the Parole Board's authority to make competency determinations in cases unlike this one where there has not been a recent judicial determination of incompetency. We note only that it seems clear that there are statutory concerns that the legislature should address." (Id. at 209.) "In light of our concerns about the application of the pertinent statutes to such individuals," the Court observed, "we urge the legislature to address the issues raised by the parties to this litigation." (Id. at 202.)