Case v. Pung

• Decision Date: 06 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. C8-87-1288,C8-87-1288
• Citation: 413 N.W.2d 261
• Parties: Raymond Arthur CASE, Jr., Appellant, v. Orville B. PUNG, Commissioner of Corrections, et al., Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 261

413 N.W.2d 261

Raymond Arthur CASE, Jr., Appellant, v. Orville B. PUNG, Commissioner of Corrections, et al.,

Respondent.

No. C8-87-1288.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Oct. 6, 1987.

Review Denied Nov. 24, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

The trial court properly denied appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Raymond Arthur Case, Jr., pro se.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Varco, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by NORTON, P.J., and MULALLY and LOMMEN, JJ., ^* with oral argument waived.

OPINION

MULALLY, Judge.

Appellant Raymond Arthur Case, Jr. petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied his petition, and he appeals to this court.

FACTS

Appellant was convicted of assault in the first degree and was sentenced on December 15, 1986 to a term of 120 months. His conviction was recently affirmed in State v. Case, 412 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.Ct.App.1987). The district court remanded him to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections at Stillwater. Appellant was then transferred from the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater to the Oak Park Heights Correctional Facility.

Appellant first petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on February 20, 1987. He asserted his transfer to Oak Park Heights was made without due process of law, and that he should remain at Stillwater because the district court decided at sentencing he would be transferred there. On March 3, 1987, the district court denied his petition.

On Saturday, March 7, 1987, appellant was confined to segregation at Oak Park Heights. On March 8 he received a copy of his worksheet, and on March 9 he received formal notice from the Due Process Unit. A disciplinary hearing was held on Wednesday, March 11, 1987, on appellant's claim that he received inadequate notice of his disciplinary violation. On March 27, 1987, he was sentenced to 405 days in disciplinary segregation.

Appellant petitioned the district court on May 13, 1987 for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged his procedural due process rights were violated by the Oak Park Heights officials' failure to provide him with formal notice of his violation within 24 hours, and that the officials improperly failed to award him good time during his disciplinary segregation. He also reiterated his claim that the transfer from Stillwater to Oak Park Heights violated his fourteenth amendment liberty interests. The trial court decided appellant was not entitled to a writ or an evidentiary hearing on the evidence presented at the hearing. It determined his due process rights were not violated, he was properly sentenced to punitive segregation, and the prison officials properly did not award him good time during the punitive segregation. As to his claim that the transfer from Stillwater to Oak Park Heights violated his fourteenth amendment liberty interests, it noted that appellant had filed a petition on this issue previously, and that the court had issued a final order, from which appellant could appeal pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 589.29.

Case appeals from the order of June 17, 1987.

ISSUES

1. Were appellant's due process rights violated in regards to his disciplinary segregation?

2. Were appellant's procedural due process rights violated when he was transferred from Stillwater to Oak Park Heights?

ANALYSIS

1. In reviewing a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court's primary concern is whether the petitioner has been denied fundamental constitutional rights. Edstrom v. State, 378 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), aff'd, 386 N.W.2d 708 (Minn.1986). The burden is on the petitioner to show the illegality of his detention. Id., 378 N.W.2d at 93. The findings of the court will be sustained if reasonably supported by the evidence. State v. Morse, 398 N.W.2d 673, 680 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 1987).

Appellant asserted below that his procedural due process rights were violated because Oak Park Heights officials failed to provide him with timely notice of his violation. He apparently does not challenge on appeal the trial court's decision that the notice was sufficient. On the record before the court it appears the trial court's decision was correct.

Appellant's main challenge concerns the failure to award him good time during his 405 day punitive segregation sentence. Minn.Stat. Sec. 244.04, subd. 1 (1986) provides that an inmate may have his term of imprisonment:

reduced in duration by one day for each two days during which the inmate violates none of the disciplinary offense rules promulgated by the commissioner. * * * Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, if an inmate violates a disciplinary offense rule promulgated by the commissioner, good time earned prior to the violation may not be taken away, but the inmate may be required to serve an appropriate portion of the term of imprisonment after the violation without earning good time.

(Emphasis added.) Subdivision 2 provides that an individual disciplinary offense shall not result in the loss of more than 90 days of good time; however, an inmate in segregation for violation of a disciplinary rule for which the inmate could also be prosecuted under the criminal laws may not earn good time while in segregation. Id. The loss of good time is a disciplinary sanction and the procedure and the rights of the inmate are those which are in effect for the imposition of other disciplinary sanctions. Id.; see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The district court determined that the prison officials properly did not award appellant good time during...