Black, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources, et al. v. Romano (471 U.S. 606)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 20, 1985 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 471 U.S. 606 · 105 S. Ct. 2254
- Decided
- May 20, 1985
- Term
- October Term 1984
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we consider whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment generally requires a sentencing court to indicate that it has considered alternatives to incarceration before revoking probation. After a hearing, a state judge found that respondent had violated his probation conditions by committing a felony shortly after his original prison sentences were suspended. The judge revoked probation and ordered respondent to begin serving the previously imposed sentences. Nearly six years later, the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that respondent had been denied due process because the record of the revocation hearing did not expressly indicate that the state judge had considered alternatives to imprisonment. The District Court granted a writ of habeas corpus and ordered respondent unconditionally released from custody. 567 F. Supp. 882 (1983). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 735 F. 2d 319 (1984). We granted certiorari, 469 U. S. 1033 (1984), and we now reverse. I On November 15, 1976, respondent Nicholas Romano pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Laclede County, State of Missouri, to two counts of transferring and selling a controlled substance. The charges resulted from Romano’s attempt to trade 26 pounds of marihuana, which he had harvested, refined, and…
Excerpt of a 36,457-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.