Bridges v. State, CR-92-0790
| Decision Date | 03 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | CR-92-0790 |
| Citation | 636 So.2d 696 |
| Parties | Johnny BRIDGES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Johnny Bridges, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty., and Harry Lyles and Ellen Leonard, Dept. of Corrections, for appellee.
Johnny Bridges appeals from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition shows that he is a prison inmate; that he was charged in a prison disciplinary proceeding with threatening to kill a prison employee, in violation of a prison regulation; that a hearing was held before a hearing officer; that the hearing officer found him guilty as charged; and that he was ordered, inter alia, to serve 25 days in disciplinary segregation. He avers in his petition that the disciplinary proceeding failed to comport with due process requirements because, he argues, the finding of guilt was based solely on hearsay testimony.
The state moved to dismiss the petition, categorically denying its averments and asserting generally that the appellant had received "the full range of due process." The trial court summarily granted the state's motion to dismiss.
In a case involving a prison disciplinary proceeding, the initial inquiry is whether the deprivation suffered amounted to the denial of a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Heidelburg v. State, 522 So.2d 337 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). Disciplinary segregation constitutes a denial of a liberty interest and triggers the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Due process requires that the decision of a state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitrarily or capriciously, but be based upon some evidence. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Heidelburg v. State. Hearsay testimony may be admissible in prison disciplinary hearings; however, it may not alone be sufficient to support a finding of guilt. Pearsall v. State, 564 So.2d 1014 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), rev'd in part on other grounds, 564 So.2d 1017 (Ala.1990). See also Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961 (Ala.1984). Situations arise where findings of guilt based entirely on hearsay are proper and necessary; however, in those cases certain measures must be taken to ensure minimum due process. Pearsall v. State.
In this case, the sole evidence upon which the finding of guilt was based was the hearsay statement of the arresting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byers v. State
...however, in those cases certain measures must be taken to ensure minimum due process. Pearsall v. State." Bridges v. State, 636 So.2d 696, 697 (Ala. Crim.App.1993). See also Oliver v. State, 770 So.2d 1116, 1117-18 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000); and Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 The disciplinary re......
-
Bryant v. Ala. Dep't of Corr..
...however in those cases certain measures must be taken to ensure minimum due process. Pearsall v. State.’ “ Bridges v. State, 636 So.2d 696, 697 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). See also Oliver v. State, 770 So.2d 1116, 1117–18 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); and Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).......
-
Baskin v. State
...officer, regarding what persons who were not incarcerated told him about the incident. As this Court noted in Bridges v. State, 636 So.2d 696 (Ala.Crim. App.1993): "Due process requires that the decision of a state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitrarily or capriciou......
-
McFadden v. State
...officer, regarding what a person who was not incarcerated told him about the incident. As this Court noted in Bridges v. State, 636 So.2d 696 (Ala.Crim. App.1993): "Due process requires that the decision of the state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitrarily or caprici......