Bucklin v. State

Decision Date25 October 1983
Docket NumberNo. 2-69474,2-69474
Citation342 N.W.2d 896
PartiesLeonard A. BUCKLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtIowa Court of Appeals

Patrick R. Grady, Asst. Appellate Defender, Des Moines, for petitioner-appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Mark Hunacek, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent-appellee.

Heard by DONIELSON, P.J., and SCHLEGEL and SACKETT, JJ.

DONIELSON, Judge.

Petitioner appeals from the trial court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief under Iowa Code ch. 663A. He claims that his due process rights were violated when a prison disciplinary committee reduced the credit against his sentence without allowing him to question the polygraph operator whose report was used against him at the disciplinary hearing. He also claims that the committee was required to provide written reasons for the discipline inflicted. We affirm.

Petitioner, an inmate at the Iowa Men's Reformatory at Anamosa, was punished by a prison disciplinary committee for engaging in sex acts with another inmate and for lying to a prison employee about the incident. His punishment included loss of thirty-one days' credit on his sentence. He challenged his punishment by filing the present application for postconviction relief. The trial court denied relief, and he has appealed.

I.

Petitioner first claims that he was denied due process when he was not allowed to question the polygraph operator who had previously determined that petitioner was not telling the truth when he denied the sexual misconduct allegations. This determination was the basis for the lying charge that was subsequently brought against petitioner who wanted to cross-examine the operator about the polygraph results. It is clear, however, that petitioner does not have a constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 567-69, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2980-81, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 957-58 (1974). The following language is found in Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 285 N.W.2d 751, 759 (Iowa 1979):

Petitioner's claim that he was improperly denied cross-examination asks for more than Wolff gives him. He may question the evidence against him to the extent that he may personally respond to the contents of the report and produce evidence in support of his position. Wolff does not, however, give him a right to be confronted by opposing witnesses.

The decision to allow cross-examination of such witnesses is left to the sound discretion of the prison officials. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 569, 94 S.Ct. at 2981, 41 L.Ed.2d at 958. We find no abuse of that discretion in this case in refusing to allow the cross-examination. Petitioner was given every opportunity to call his own witnesses and present his own evidence. At that stage of the proceeding, Wolff requires nothing more.

Petitioner also contends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Varnson v. Satran
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 22 Mayo 1985
    ...refusal to allow him to question the polygraph operator whose report was used against him at a disciplinary hearing. Bucklin v. State, 342 N.W.2d 896 (Iowa Ct.App.1983). Varnson has not challenged the foundational aspects of the polygraph test results in this ...
  • Lenea v. Lane, s. 88-1653
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 11 Agosto 1989
    ...L.Ed.2d 888 (1988); Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir.1987); Varnson v. Satran, 368 N.W.2d 533 (N.D.1985); Bucklin v. State, 342 N.W.2d 896 (Iowa Ct.App.1983). In prison disciplinary hearings, polygraphs may corroborate vital testimony or other evidence. Viens v. Daniels, supra; Va......
  • Harpster v. State, 96-39
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 17 Septiembre 1997
    ...the statement need not provide justification for the precise punishment imposed. Mahan, 541 N.W.2d at 920 (citing Bucklin v. State, 342 N.W.2d 896, 898 (Iowa App.1983)). Nor is it necessary for the written statement to expressly indicate what statements were relied on in the reports conside......
  • Mahan v. State, 94-793
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 31 Octubre 1995
    ...and the reasons for the disciplinary action, justifications for the precise punishment inflicted are not necessary. Bucklin v. State, 342 N.W.2d 896, 898 (Iowa App.1983). The committee must only "state why the punishment is being inflicted at all; i.e. specific findings of fact indicating p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT