Ladigo’s counsel appeared at the hearing and asserted that under the circumstances of Ladigo’s hospitalization, it was inappropriate to go forward with the proceeding. After stating this objection, counsel left the hearing room, aware that Ladigo’s attending physician, Dr. Abboy, was prepared to testify that in his medical opinion, Ladigo was both mentally and physically able to attend the hearing. Based on the unrebutted medical testimony, the Parole Commission Examiner found that Ladigo and his counsel had voluntarily refused to participate in the revocation hearing. The Parole Examiner then held the revocation proceeding in their absence and subsequently recommended revocation of parole.
Ladigo’s counsel attended the hearing and argued that proceeding under the circumstances of Ladigo’s hospitalization was inappropriate. After raising this objection, counsel left the hearing room, knowing that Ladigo’s attending physician, Dr. Abboy, was prepared to testify that Ladigo was mentally and physically capable of attending. Based on the uncontested medical testimony, the Parole Commission Examiner concluded that Ladigo and his counsel had voluntarily chosen not to participate in the revocation hearing. The Parole Examiner proceeded with the hearing in their absence and ultimately recommended the revocation of parole.
Ladigo's attorney attended the hearing and argued that, given Ladigo's hospitalization, proceeding with the hearing was not appropriate. After making this argument, the attorney left the room, knowing that Ladigo's attending physician, Dr. Abboy, was ready to testify that Ladigo was mentally and physically fit to attend the hearing. The Parole Commission Examiner, relying on this unchallenged medical testimony, determined that both Ladigo and his attorney had voluntarily chosen not to participate in the revocation hearing. Consequently, the Parole Examiner conducted the proceeding without them and recommended the revocation of parole.
Ladigo's lawyer was present at the hearing and argued that, since Ladigo was hospitalized, the hearing was not warranted. The attorney then left the room, aware that Ladigo's attending physician, Dr. Abboy, was prepared to testify that Ladigo was mentally and physically competent to be present at the hearing. Based on this unrebutted medical testimony, the Parole Commission Examiner concluded that Ladigo and his attorney had voluntarily declined to attend the revocation hearing. The Parole Examiner therefore proceeded without them and recommended that parole be revoked.
Ladigo's lawyer was present at the hearing and contended that, because Ladigo was hospitalized, the hearing should not have gone forward. After stating this argument, the attorney departed the room, aware that Ladigo's attending physician, Dr. Abboy, was prepared to testify that Ladigo was mentally and physically competent to attend the hearing. The Parole Commission Examiner, based on this uncontested medical testimony, concluded that both Ladigo and his attorney had voluntarily waived their right to attend the revocation hearing. Therefore, the Parole Examiner held the hearing without them and recommended the revocation of parole.