Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 09 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. H-742,H-742 |
| Citation | 573 P.2d 876,117 Ariz. 476 |
| Parties | Milton E. BROWN, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Arizona, Respondent. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Milton E. Brown, Jr., in pro per.
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by Robert F. Ellig, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for respondent.
The petitioner, Milton E. Brown, Jr., by petition for writ of habeas corpus seeks to require the Department of Corrections to credit him with two-for-one time while he is in protective custody at the state prison. We accepted jurisdiction for the limited purpose of reviewing certain of the legal issues raised by petitioner.
At the outset it must be noted that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief because he does not allege any facts which show that he is entitled to immediate release from custody. Goodman v. State,96 Ariz. 139, 393 P.2d 148 (1964); Whitt v. State Department of Corrections,108 Ariz. 301, 497 P.2d 514 (1972). Despite the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to relief by habeas corpus we have held in the past that where relief may be granted by extraordinary writ (special action), this court may grant the appropriate relief even though the writ applied for or the motion made is not aptly titled. We look to substance not to form. Goodman v. State, supra. We therefore will treat the petition as one for relief by way of special action.
Certain matters alleged in the petition are not disputed, namely: that petitioner is a prisoner serving a lawful sentence at the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona; that petitioner requested that he be placed in protective custody because he feared for his personal safety; that his request for placement in protective custody was honored by prison authorities; that petitioner was advised that he would not be eligible for two-for-one time while in protective custody.
The petitioner also alleges that every inmate in the general population of the prison is credited with double time deduction whether they are working or not, provided they are not under penalty of specifically prescribed "punitive punishment actions." The state denies this allegation.
In Hogan v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles, 108 Ariz. 472, 501 P.2d 944 (1972) we held that it was entirely discretionary within the administration of the state prison who shall be assigned to work which would qualify for the two-for-one credit under A.R.S. § 31-252. That holding, however, proceeded on the assumption that time credits were being awarded to prisoners by the Department of Corrections and the state prison based on the requirements of A.R.S. § 31-252. Petitioner alleges that the Department and the prison administration have by practice been allowing all prisoners the time credit. If true, this practice casts a different light on the issue and distinguishes this case from that in Hogan.
Since Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) it is clear that a prisoner serving a sentence of lawful imprisonment is not stripped of all constitutional protections. Such prisoners have the protection of the Constitution in a number of instances including the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, not every deprivation imposed by prison authorities on a prisoner triggers the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976). The interest to be protected must be a liberty interest, whether created by statute or constitution. If a liberty interest is involved it may not be forfeited by state arbitrary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra; Meachum v. Fano, supra.
The petitioner has attempted to set forth two liberty interests: his right to life and his right to equal protection under law. As a sentenced prisoner he has forfeited his freedom to go and come as he pleases, but he has not forfeited his right to life. The state may confine petitioner for his crime, but the state has the obligation of protecting him from harm while he is confined in its custody. Finney v. Arkansas Board of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir., 1974). The state must also apply statutory privileges in the same manner to all who qualify for such privileges.
It is suggested that petitioner is in his present situation because he has requested that type of confinement with the knowledge that the prison administration would hold him ineligible for the two-for-one credits under A.R.S. § 31-252. Petitioner readily admits that he was required to sign a waiver for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perry
...constitutional rights and protections. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Brown v. State, 117 Ariz. 476, 573 P.2d 876 (1978); Moen v. Wilson, 189 Colo. 85, 536 P.2d 1129 (1975); Roque v. Warden, 181 Conn. 85, 434 A.2d 348 (1980); State v. Holmes, 109 N.J.......
-
White v. Lewis
...might otherwise apply if he were represented by counsel." Ortiz v. Cornetta, 867 F.2d 146, 148 (2d Cir.1989). See also Brown v. State, 117 Ariz. 476, 573 P.2d 876 (1978); Goodman v. State, 96 Ariz. 139, 393 P.2d 148 (1964) (courts look to substance, not form, and will treat pro per petition......
-
State v. Durazo, 2 CA-CR 2016-0198-PR
...148 Ariz. 382, 384, 714 P.2d 875, 877 (App. 1986), citing State v. Davis, 148 Ariz. 62, 712 P.2d 975 (App. 1985), and Brown v. State, 117 Ariz. 476,573 P.2d 876 (1975). But relief by special action is available only when a party has no "equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal."......
-
Fierro v. MacDougal
...mean that the Department was free to ignore such rules or that they were insufficient to create a liberty interest. In Brown v. State, 117 Ariz. 476, 573 P.2d 876 (1978), the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the Department's claim that Arizona prisons did not have to comply with regulations t......