
    HAWKINS v MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD
    1. Pardon and Parole—Statutes—Parole Revocation Hearing— Right to Counsel.
    A parolee is afforded a statutory hearing to determine if a parole violation has occurred and, where he is subject to having his conditional freedom ended, he has the same need of coúnsel as at any other critical stage in the proceedings against him; hearsay, opinion, and fact all come before the Parole Board during the course of a revocation hearing and presence of counsel is most important in that it aids in limiting the hearing to relevant facts and in eliminating irrelevancies, insinuations, and unsubstantiated allegations (MCLA 791.240a).
    2. Pardon and Parole—Parole Revocation Hearing—Right to Counsel—Indigents—Statutes—Equal Protection—Constitutional Law.
    The right to counsel at parole revocation hearings is provided by statute in Michigan and this right cannot be limited to those who can afford to hire an attorney, but must be extended also to indigents; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that an indigent parolee who contests parole revocation be afforded the same right to counsel that a parolee of means enjoys (US Const, Am XIV; MCLA 791.240a).
    3. Pardon and Parole—Parole Revocation Hearing—Right to Counsel—Felonies—Misdemeanors—Indigents—Appointment of Counsel—Circuit Courts—Compensation of Counsel—Department of Corrections.
    A parolee must be advised of his right to counsel before a parole revocation hearing takes place, if his parole is being revoked for any reason other than conviction of a felony or misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment; if the parolee alleges indigency and requests appointment of counsel, the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is confined shall determine if defendant is indigent, and upon a finding of indigency, the court shall appoint counsel; costs of counsel shall be ordered paid from the general operating budget of the Department of Corrections until such time as the Legislature shall otherwise provide.
    
      Reference for Points in Headnotes
    [1-4] 59 Am Jur, Pardon and Parole §§ 90-102.
    
      4. Mandamus—Pardon and Parole—Parole Revocation Hearing —Parolee’s Release—Statutes.
    Mandamus compelling the Department of Corrections to release petitioner from custody pending a de novo parole revocation hearing is granted where a proper parole revocation hearing was not held within 30 days as required by statute (MCLA 791.240a).
    Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 2, Lesinski, C. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gillis, JJ., granting a writ of mandamus against the Michigan Parole Board.
    Submitted June 7, 1973.
    (No. 12
    June Term 1973,
    Docket No. 54,794.)
    Decided December 18, 1973.
    45 Mich App 529 affirmed.
    Original action in the Court of Appeals by Chester P. Hawkins against the Michigan Parole Board, for a writ of mandamus to compel his release from custody. Writ granted pending a de novo parole revocation hearing. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      State Appellate Defender Oíñce (by Larry R. Farmer), for plaintiff.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Thomas A. Carlson, Assistant Solicitor General, for defendant.
    Amicus Curiae: Marilyn L. Kelley, for Juvenile Defender Office.
   Per Curiam.

We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals and affirm.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and T. E. Brennan, T. G. Kavanagh, Swainson, Williams, Levin, and M. S. Coleman, JJ., concurred.  