Bryant v. Ala. Dep't of Corr..
Decision Date | 01 October 2010 |
Docket Number | CR–09–1375. |
Citation | 61 So.3d 1109 |
Parties | Quantrey BRYANTv.ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Quantrey Bryant, pro se.Kim T. Thomas, gen. counsel, and Albert S. Butler, asst. gen. counsel, Alabama Department of Corrections, for appellee.WELCH, Judge.
Quantrey Bryant appeals from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, wherein he alleged that he was denied due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding. He was found guilty in the disciplinary proceeding of violating Rule No. 64, Administrative Regulation No. 403 (possession of contraband). Bryant was sanctioned with 45 days' disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges. Bryant lost one year and seven months good-time credit.
In his petition, Bryant contended that he was denied due process in the prison disciplinary proceeding because, according to him, the hearing officer's decision was based solely on hearsay. Thus, he claimed, the evidence against him failed to meet the “some-evidence” standard and the hearing officer's finding was arbitrary and capricious. The Alabama Department of Corrections (“DOC”) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that Bryant had, in fact, been afforded due process. The DOC attached to its motion to dismiss several documents, including a copy of the disciplinary report and a copy of the institutional incident report. The circuit court granted the DOC's motion to dismiss the petition.
On appeal, Bryant restates his argument that he was denied the minimum due-process requirements established in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), when the hearing officer made a decision based solely on hearsay testimony. We first note that the loss of good-time credit constitutes a denial of a liberty interest that triggers the due-process requirements established in Wolff. Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Crim.App.1985).
“
Byers v. State, 856 So.2d 954, 956–57 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).
In this case, the sole evidence upon which the finding of guilt was based was the hearsay testimony of Captain Gwendolyn Tarrance regarding what Tarrance had been told by Officer James Liverett. The record reflects that Captain Tarrance testified at the hearing as follows:
“On December 14, 2009, at approximately 6:26 a.m.[,] Officer James Liverett reported to [me] that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skinner v. Bevans
...have rejected the defendant's defense of self-defense based on the erroneous belief that the defendant had a duty to retreat. See Blake, 61 So.3d at 1109;Williams, 46 So.3d at 971–72; and Jackson v. State, 993 So.2d 45, 48 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). We conclude that, if, at the time of the assaul......
-
Hawkins v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.
...support of this argument, Hawkins relies on Washington v. State, 690 So.2d 539 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), and Bryant v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 61 So.3d 1109 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). This Court, in an unpublished memorandum, affirms the judgment of the circuit court, concluding that Hawkin......
-
Blake v. State
...... for attempted murder, see § 13A–4–2 and § 13A–6–2, Ala.Code 1975, and her resulting sentence of 20 years in prison. The circuit ......