{"id":1977,"date":"2020-01-30T10:35:34","date_gmt":"2020-01-30T16:35:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1977"},"modified":"2020-02-04T10:45:07","modified_gmt":"2020-02-04T16:45:07","slug":"1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/01\/30\/1977\/","title":{"rendered":"In re Parole of Ronald Irwin (Mich. Ct. App. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In re Parole of Ronald Irwin, No. 342963 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant had been convicted of sex offenses and received a lengthy custodial sentence. He then became parole eligible, and was granted parole by the Michigan parole board. The prosecutor objected and sought review from the circuit court, which reversed the decision of the parole board. Appellant then sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court. Parole decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and in Appellant’s case there was no indication that the decision to grant Appellant parole was an abuse of discretion. In particular, the Court of Appeals noted that conditioning Appellant’s release on the requirement that he complete a treatment program did not automatically indicate that Appellant could not be released safely.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n