83-1,111. Committed offender; eligible for parole; release on parole; review procedures; release date set; case deferred; reconsideration.

(1) A committed offender serving an indeterminate sentence under which he or she may become eligible for parole shall be interviewed and have his or her record reviewed by two or more members of the Board of Parole or a person designated by the board within sixty days before the expiration of his or her minimum term less any reductions as provided in section 83-1,110. If, in the opinion of the reviewers, the review indicates the offender is reasonably likely to be granted parole and has a potential parole term of no less than one month, the Board of Parole shall schedule a public hearing before a majority of its members. At such hearing the offender may present evidence, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. If, in the opinion of the reviewers, the review indicates the offender should be denied parole, the offender may request an additional review by a majority of the members of the board. A review by the majority of the members of the board may be conducted not more than once annually. Any hearing and review shall be conducted in an informal manner, but a complete record of the proceedings shall be made and preserved.

(2) The board shall render its decision regarding the committed offender's release on parole within a reasonable time after the hearing or review. The decision shall be by majority vote of the board. The decision shall be based on the entire record before the board which shall include the opinion of the person who conducted the review. If the board denies parole, written notification listing the reasons for such denial and the recommendations for correcting deficiencies which cause the denial shall be given to the committed offender within thirty days following the hearing.

(3) If the board fixes the release date, such date shall be not more than six months from the date of the committed offender's parole hearing or from the date of last reconsideration of his or her case, unless there are special reasons for fixing a later release date.

(4) If the board defers the case for later reconsideration, the committed offender shall be afforded a parole review at least once a year until a release date is fixed. The board may order a reconsideration or a rehearing of the case at any time.

(5) The release of a committed offender on parole shall not be upon the application of the offender but by the initiative of the Board of Parole. No application for release on parole made by a committed offender or on his or her behalf shall be entertained by the board. This subsection does not prohibit the Director of Correctional Services from recommending to the board that it consider an individual offender for release on parole.

Source

Annotations

Under subsection (4) of this section, annual public hearings must be afforded only to those offenders whose cases have been deferred for later reconsideration and not to those offenders for whom parole has been denied. Van Ackeren v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 251 Neb. 477, 558 N.W.2d 48 (1997).

Sentencing judge's announcement he considered possible effect of statutes permitting prison authorities to ameliorate sentences did not violate constitutional due process, and sentences were not excessive. State v. Houston, 196 Neb. 724, 246 N.W.2d 63 (1976).

When after defendant's conviction, a statutory change is made in the law governing parole and the defendant thereafter violates his parole, the amended law is applicable and is not ex post facto in its application. Berry v. Wolff, 193 Neb. 717, 228 N.W.2d 885 (1975).

One who violates parole within three months of date his release would be mandatory hereunder permits exclusion of such offender from the benefits of subsection (5) of this section. Von Bokelman v. Sigler, 186 Neb. 378, 183 N.W.2d 267 (1971).

This section was amended to provide a prisoner, whose eligibility for parole was previously deferred for later consideration, with an annual parole review and a parole hearing if it is determined in the review that the prisoner is reasonably likely to be granted parole. This section, prior to the amendments, provided a prisoner, whose eligibility for parole was previously deferred for consideration, with an annual parole hearing. Implementation of the amendments does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, because the amendments merely alter the method to be followed in fixing a parole release date under identical substantive standards as previously established, do not create a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to a sentence, and do not modify the statutory punishment imposed for any offenses or alter the standards for determining the initial date for parole eligibility or an inmate's suitability for parole. The amendments merely change the process by which the parole board reviews prisoners' parole possibilities, and implementation of the amendments will not result in a longer period of incarceration for prisoners. Moore v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 12 Neb. App. 525, 679 N.W.2d 427 (2004).