The justices vacated Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja’s order dismissing the lawsuit of Appleby against the officials of the Department of Corrections and Board of Parole without prejudice, finding his application for a writ of habeas corpus moot.
Judge Naraja, in his previous order, stated that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
But in their Dec. 17 opinion, Chief Justice Alexandro Castro, Justice John Manglona and Justice Perry Inos stated that the judge did not provide any reasoning in his final judgment bearing on the writ or its mootness.
According to the justices: “The record lacks discussion of the issues or analysis of the applicable law. At this stage, it is uncertain whether the [trial] court was correct in dismissing the case because the record is not fully developed.”
The justices added, “The procedural posture of this case is somewhat unusual because we analyze Appleby’s legal issue on appeal, i.e., whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction, through the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss.”
“We note,” the justices said, “Appleby’s objection that we should instead grant the appeal because where the parties agree on the basis of the appeal, as here, the solution is not to dismiss it, but to grant it. While we dispose of this matter through a motion to dismiss rather than granting the appeal, we reach the same result Appleby seeks: remand to hear the merits of the writ.”
Appleby, a parolee, was arrested on March 25, 2020 for parole violations.
Appleby exercised his right to a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause and on April 13, a hearing officer determined there was probable cause.
On June 15, the Parole Board issued a notice of final revocation hearing and scheduled the hearing on July 10 at the Gov. Pedro P. Tenorio Multi-Purpose Center.
On June 19, Appleby, represented by Assistant Public Defender Jean Pierre Nogues, filed a complaint in Superior Court naming Department of Corrections Commissioner Wally Villagomez and CNMI Board of Parole Chairman Ramon B. Camacho as defendants.
Appleby wanted the court to issue an order stopping the revocation hearing that was scheduled for July 10. Appleby also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Judge Naraja, in his ruling, said at the time the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed, the final revocation hearing had not taken place.
The final revocation order was issued on July 17.
According to the judge, Parole Board actions and appeals are governed by Administrative Procedures Act.
“If a person suffers a legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action, the person is entitled to judicial review of the action within 30 days in the CNMI Superior Court,” the judge said.
“In this case the final agency action would be the final revocation order. The actions alleged in this case can only be reviewed, according to 1 CMC §9112(d), when the final revocation order is reviewed,” the judge added.
He said, “The final revocation order is not under review in this case, and thus, without it, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case.”
Chief prosecutor John Bradley, in an email, said: “The [CNMI] Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Appleby from his parole revocation hearing. Judge Naraja incorrectly dismissed the writ; he thought it had to be handled through the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Bradley said the writ “will now return to Judge Naraja for him to decide whether the case is moot. The Commonwealth has argued that Appleby’s complaints about the preliminary hearing (used to establish reasonable cause to arrest him for a parole violation) was rendered moot because the Parole Board subsequently held a full revocation hearing and Appleby was represented by counsel.”
The Parole Board found that on March 24, 2020, parolee Appleby engaged in criminal conduct by committing the crimes of assault and battery and disturbing the peace by hitting another parolee three times while in a house and then chasing her down the street and pushing her to the ground.
Appleby served about 24 years of his 40-year sentence for killing Byung Ok Suh in November 1996 after robbing the victim’s store in San Antonio. In 1999 and 2007, Appleby was convicted for escape, adding two more years to his 40-year sentence.
Despite the opposition of the AG’s office, Appleby’s parole application was granted in September 2019.
He was also granted parole in February 2011, but it was revoked in December 2012 after he violated its conditions.
