Ex parte Bland

• Decision Date: 23 September 1983
• Citation: 441 So.2d 122
• Parties: Ex parte Chester BLAND. (In re Chester BLAND v. STATE of Alabama). 82-666.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 122

441 So.2d 122

Ex parte Chester BLAND.

(In re Chester BLAND v. STATE of Alabama).

82-666.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 23, 1983.

John I. Cottle, III of Cottle & Cottle, Tallassee, for petitioner.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Gerrilyn V. Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, Justice.

Petitioner/Appellant Chester Bland, an inmate of the Alabama prison system, filed a petition in circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his "good time" credits had been revoked at a hearing which failed to afford him due process of law. The circuit court dismissed the petition without a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 428 So.2d 1373, affirmed without an opinion. After Petitioner's application for rehearing was overruled, we granted his petition for certiorari, which utilized ARAP 39(k). We reverse and remand.

FACTS

Petitioner Chester Bland is now, and at all relevant times has been, an inmate of the Alabama prison system. On October 13, 1982, Bland was charged with a violation of prison regulations: assaulting a prison officer. Bland allegedly engaged in physical contact with Henry DeJarnett, scratching his forehead. A disciplinary proceeding was instigated against Bland, and on October 17, 1982, Bland received notice that the charge against him would be heard by a disciplinary committee on October 19.

Upon notification of the hearing date, Petitioner requested that Officer Barnes and an inmate, Jeffery Jackson, be called to testify at the disciplinary proceedings. The record indicates that Officer Barnes was not present because the hearing was scheduled on a day when he was not on duty at the prison. As for inmate Jackson, Petitioner alleges that the record fails to indicate why he was not in attendance at the hearing, while the State claims only that the record is "unclear" on this point.

The only testimony taken at the hearing was Petitioner's sworn statement, denying his guilt of the alleged infraction. Subsequently, the disciplinary committee found Petitioner to have violated the prison regulations, and revoked more than 13 years of "good time" credits which he had accumulated during his incarceration.

DECISION

In Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980), this Court observed:

"[T]he United States Supreme Court has held that a prisoner may not be stripped of 'good time' credits without some modicum of due process being accorded to him at his disciplinary hearing. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

" 'Lawful imprisonment necessarily makes unavailable many rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen, a 'retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.' Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). But, though his rights may be diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institutional environment, a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime.... Prisoners may also claim the protections of the Due Process Clause. They may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 92 S.Ct. 407, 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945).

" 'Of course, as we have indicated, the fact that prisoners retain rights under the Due Process Clause in no way implies that these rights are not subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have been lawfully committed. Cf. CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply. Cf. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, at 488, 92 S.Ct. 2593, at 2603, 33 L.Ed.2d 484. In sum, there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application.

" 'We also reject the assertion of the State that whatever may be true of the Due Process Clause in general or of other rights protected by that Clause against state infringement, the interest of prisoners in disciplinary procedures is not included in that 'liberty' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment....'

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 at 555, 556, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963 at 2974, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)."

After quoting at some length from Wolff, Williams continues:

"In Wolff, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that due process required that prisoners in a disciplinary hearing, the result of which could be the revocation of their 'good time' benefits, must be given advance written notice of the charges against them and a written statement of the evidence relied upon by the disciplinary board and the reasons for their action. The Court held that because the opportunity to be heard was an essential part of due process, a prisoner should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence. The Court did not hold that due process always required allowing prisoners to call witnesses but rather established a flexible standard to be used by courts in determining whether due process required allowing a prisoner to call witnesses in his own behalf. That standard is a balancing test between the interests of the prisoner in retaining his 'good time' and the interests of the prison in institutional safety and correctional goals.

" 'Two of the procedures that the Court held should be extended to parolees facing...