McDermott v. McDonald
Montana Supreme Court
24 P.3d 200 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
In 1989, Michael McDermott (plaintiff) was charged with multiple counts of assault and incest for sexually and physically abusing his two young stepsons. McDermott was also charged with felony bail jumping after fleeing the jurisdiction following his release on bail. In exchange for dismissal of the incest charges, McDermott pleaded guilty to the bail-jumping and assault charges and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. McDermott was designated as a violent offender for parole purposes. In addition, upon McDermott’s incarceration, a prison evaluator determined that McDermott suffered from severe sexual problems. The prison recommended that McDermott participate in the prison’s sexual-offender program (SOP), but McDermott refused. After McDermott’s first parole application was denied, the parole board also recommended that McDermott participate in the SOP. McDermott again refused to participate. McDermott’s second parole application was also denied, and the parole board cited McDermott’s noncompliance with the board’s SOP recommendation as one of the reasons for denial. McDermott then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that the parole board had violated his due-process rights by subjecting his parole release to conditions that had not been imposed in his original sentence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.