Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Shams Abdul-Rahman appealed the postconviction court order denying his Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c) motion, alleging that his parole was unlawfully revoked.
In resolving this appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed the novel question of whether a parolee must pursue an administrative appeal of a parole revocation decision with the State Board of Parole before seeking judicial review of the decision’s lawfulness.
After reviewing the applicable statutes, the appeals court concluded that they do not require an administrative appeal to precede judicial review of a parole revocation decision.
Addressing the merits of Abdul-Rahman’s appeal, the appeals court affirmed the order denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion.
Judge Grant Sullivan dissented.
Sullivan wrote that, because he viewed a parolee’s duty to exhaust available administrative remedies as mandatory under the governing statutory framework and Colorado Supreme Court’s precedent, he would hold that Abdul-Rahman’s failure to use those remedies deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction, requiring the appeals court vacate the court’s order.