Harold Eugene Rogers, Appellant v. Gleenover Knight, Appellee — Hart, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Hart, dissenting, would have reversed and remanded because Rogers’s petition alleged a justiciable controversy concerning the calculation of his parole-eligibility date, not merely his entitlement to a parole hearing. She reasoned that the circuit court improperly relied on later-developed facts, failed to address the alleged calculation involving Rogers’s two sentences, and entered summary disposition without the notice required by Rule 56. Justice Baker, dissenting separately, likewise would have reversed and remanded for a hearing to determine whether a writ of mandamus was appropriate.