Black v. Romano

Background

Nicholas Romano was placed on five years’ probation after the court suspended concurrent twenty-year prison sentences for drug offenses. Two months later he was charged in a hit-and-run that injured a pedestrian. At a revocation hearing the judge found a probation violation, revoked probation, and ordered Romano to serve the suspended sentences; the judge did not say on the record that alternatives to imprisonment were considered. Romano later sought federal habeas relief, and a District Court and the Court of Appeals ordered his release because the record lacked an express on-the-record rejection of nonprison alternatives.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires sentencing judges to state on the record that they considered alternatives before revoking probation. The Court held that existing due-process rules require notice, a hearing, the chance to present evidence, and a written statement of the evidence and reasons, but do not generally require a separate on-the-record explanation rejecting nonprison alternatives. The Court reversed the lower courts, found there was enough evidence of a violation, and concluded procedures mandated by prior cases satisfied due process in this case.

Real world impact

After this decision, trial judges are not universally required to articulate, on the record, that they considered alternatives to incarceration before revoking probation. Probationers still keep the procedural protections of notice, a hearing, and a written statement of reasons, and Bearden remains an exception when revocation would be fundamentally unfair.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, wrote separately to emphasize that while written reasons are not required here, revocation must be a rational response to the violation and cannot be arbitrary.