FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2006-1502

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA,
Plaintiff,

vs

MASORY KAREN,
Defendant

ORDER DENYING PAROLE

Dennis K. Yamase
Associate Justice

Decided: July 8, 2008

APPEARANCE:

For the Defendant: William E. Minkley, Esq.
Office of the Public Defender
P.O. Box 754
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Criminal Law and Procedure  Parole
The Parole Rules require the applicant to file an original and three copies and also require the parole application to be accompanied by proof of service on not only the prosecutor or prosecuting authority, but also on the person or persons in charge of any facility where the prisoner has been incarcerated for 30 days or more during the sentence he is requesting to be reviewed, -the victim of the crime or at least one member of the victim's immediate family if the victim is deceased, and the prisoner's village or municipal leaders. When a parole request does not comply with these requirements, the court may deny the request for failure to comply with the parole request procedure and may, at its discretion, notify the prisoner of the inadequacies and grant him one or more 30-day extensions within which to file a renewed request that properly complies with the parole rules. FSM v. Karen, 16 FSM Intrm. 22, 23 (Chk. 2008).

Criminal Law and Procedure  Parole
The parole rules bar repetitive requests. A prisoner whose request for parole has been denied (either before or after review) is not permitted to file another request until one year after the entry of the order denying the request for review or denying modification of sentence following review. FSM v. Karen, 16 FSM Intrm. 22, 23-24 (Chk. 2008).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

DENNIS K. YAMASE, Associate Justice:

On July 4, 2008, the prisoner, Masory Karen, filed an original and one copy of his Request for Review of Sentence Pursuant to GCO 1990-1 to Determine Eligibility for Parole, and Motion for Expedited Review and Parole, with a certificate of service on the prosecutor, Chuuk Attorney General Joses R. Gallen.

The Parole Rules require the applicant to file an original and three copies. FSM Par. R. 2(b)(1). The rules also require the parole application to be accompanied by proof of service on not only the prosecutor or prosecuting authority, FSM Par. R. 2(b)(2)(A), but also on "the person or persons in charge of any facility where the prisoner has been incarcerated for thirty (30) days or more during the sentence he is requesting to be reviewed," FSM Par. R. 2(b)(2)(C); "-the victim of the crime or at least one member of the victim's immediate family if the victim is deceased," FSM Par. R. 2(b)(2)(D); and the prisoner's village or municipal leaders, FSM Par. R. 2(b)(2)(E). Karen's parole request does not comply with these requirements.

The court, in making its initial determination on whether to grant or deny the prisoner's request to have his sentence reviewed, may deny the request for failure to comply with the parole request procedure. In such instances, "the court may at its discretion notify the prisoner of the inadequacies and grant him one or more thirty (30) day extensions within which to file a renewed request . . . which properly complies with these rules." FSM Par. R. 4(b). If these were the only deficiencies in Karen's parole request, the court would grant a thirty-day extension to permit Karen to cure them. The court, however, must deny the request on another ground.

Karen filed, on October 23, 2007, a previous request for review of sentence to determine his eligibility for parole. That request was denied by court order entered November 13, 2007. The request now before the court was filed on July 4, 2008. The parole rules bar repetitive requests. "[A] prisoner . . . whose request for parole has been denied (either before or after review) shall not be permitted to file another request until one year after the entry of the order denying the request for review or denying modification of sentence following review." FSM Par. R. 8. See also FSM Par. R. 4(b) (if a request is denied without providing a thirty (30) day renewal extension, no further action is required by the court and the prisoner may not renew his request for one year as specified by Rule 8).

Accordingly, Masory Karen's current request for review of his sentence to determine his eligibility for parole is not permitted and is hereby denied.

* * * *