Colorado’s second-highest court clarified last month that defendants whose parole is revoked do not have to appeal the decision in Colorado State Board of Parole and may seek direct judicial review instead.

By a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ruled for the first time that judges can hear parole revocation appeals without the defendant having to go through an appeal to the parole board.

The majority noted that the process of returning a person to prison for a parole violation first involves a hearing by a member of the parole board. After that portion ends, the defendant “may appeal” the decision to two other members of the parole board.

However, wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove for himself and Judge Terry Fox, state law doesn’t say that’s the only route a defendant can take, because people on parole can also seek help from courts for alleged “illegal parole revocation.”

“Looking at the statutory scheme as a whole, we conclude that an administrative appeal of parole revocation to the Appellate Body is not a prerequisite to judicial review of the decision,” Grove wrote. in the opinion of October 31. He added that it “may be true” that a parole board appeal would be a better first step, but it was one the law apparently does not require.

Judge Grant T. Sullivan dissented, worrying that the ability of defendants to “skip” an appeal to the parole board would have negative consequences.

“For example, allowing parolees to bypass appellate body review will deprive the Board of its ability to correct errors made by the sole Board member who presided over the original revocation hearing, potentially leading to even more protracted litigation that would could have been avoided.” he wrote.

Sullivan added that the requirement, in other contexts, that a person go through an executive agency’s internal complaint process before filing suit is meant to promote efficiency, allow subject matter experts to weigh in first, and preserve judicial resources.

He clarified that a parolee is not required to challenge the decision to revoke a single member of the parole board. But if they don’t, in his view, “the parolee must abide by the consequences of their decision, including giving up their ability to seek judicial review.”

The case is People v. Abdul-Rahman.