Background
Donald Starks was convicted in 2016 of first-degree sexual abuse involving a victim under 12 and was released into mandatory Sex Offender Post-Incarceration Supervision in November 2020. After Starks entered a halfway house, WestCare discharged him in February 2022 for alleged noncompliance with its policies and staff directions, including combative and aggressive conduct.
Administrative law judges conducted Starks’ probable-cause and final revocation hearings, at which he was represented by counsel and could testify, present and examine witnesses, and submit documents. An ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that Starks had violated his supervision conditions. The Kentucky Parole Board then revoked his supervision, finding that he posed a significant risk to prior victims or the community and could not be appropriately managed in the community. The Pike Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the Board and dismissed Starks’ petition for a declaration of rights.
The Court of Appeals held Starks’ appeal in abeyance pending the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Hodge v. Kentucky Parole Board, which addressed the Board’s use of ALJs in revocation proceedings. After Hodge became final, the court returned Starks’ appeal to its active docket.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. Applying Hodge, it held that the Board may use neutral ALJs to conduct evidentiary hearings, make factual findings, and develop the record. Neither due process nor Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 439 requires the Board itself to conduct the final evidentiary hearing, so Starks’ challenge to the delegation of that function failed.
The process nevertheless violated due process because it provided Starks no reasonable avenue to file exceptions or otherwise contest the ALJ’s findings and analysis before the Board made the final revocation decision. Although Kentucky’s general administrative-hearing statute excludes parole proceedings, Hodge requires the Board to employ comparable procedures allowing exceptions to an ALJ’s findings.
The court remanded with directions for the circuit court to grant Starks’ petition and return the matter to the Board for reconsideration. Before issuing a new final revocation decision, the Board must give Starks a reasonable opportunity to submit exceptions to the ALJ’s findings for the Board’s consideration.
Key Takeaways
- The Kentucky Parole Board may delegate evidentiary hearings and fact-finding in revocation proceedings to neutral administrative law judges.
- Due process requires a meaningful opportunity to challenge an ALJ’s findings before the Board makes the final revocation decision.
- The remedy was reconsideration by the Board under procedures permitting Starks to file exceptions, not immediate reinstatement to supervision.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Kentucky Supreme Court’s Hodge framework to sex-offender post-incarceration supervision, which Kentucky treats like parole for due-process purposes. It confirms that the constitutional defect lies not in the use of ALJs, but in denying the supervised person an opportunity to contest their findings before the Board acts.
For Kentucky revocation proceedings, the ruling requires an additional procedural safeguard resembling the exceptions process used in other administrative cases. Courts reviewing prior revocations may need to determine whether the affected person had a reasonable pre-decision opportunity to identify and preserve objections to the hearing officer’s findings.