Ex parte Hawkins
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FAULKNER; TORBERT; TORBERT |
| Citation | 475 So.2d 489 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1985 |
| Parties | Ex parte Robert A. HAWKINS. (Re Robert A. Hawkins v. State of Alabama). 84-441. |
Page 489
(Re Robert A. Hawkins
v.
State of Alabama).
Page 490
Keith A. Howard of Howard, Dunn, Howard & Howard, Wetumpka, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jane LeCroy Brannan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
FAULKNER, Justice.
State prison inmate Robert A. Hawkins filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Elmore County. Hawkins contends that his "good-time" benefits had been revoked at a disciplinary hearing which failed to afford him due process of law. The prison disciplinary board recommended that Hawkins lose four months' "good time" and be removed from trade school after finding Hawkins guilty of being under the influence of alcohol. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 461 So.2d 59, affirmed without opinion. We granted certiorari to determine the constitutionality of the disciplinary proceeding which resulted in Hawkins's loss of good-time benefits.
An inmate may not be deprived of good-time benefits without being accorded at least some modicum of due process at his disciplinary hearing. Ex parte Bland, 441 So.2d 122 (Ala.1983). In order to satisfy the due process requirement in a prison disciplinary proceeding which could result in the revocation of good-time benefits, the inmate must be provided with advance written notice of the charges against him and a written statement of the evidence
Page 491
relied upon and the reasons for the action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980).In Williams v. Davis, supra, this Court held that due process also requires that an inmate be allowed to introduce witnesses and produce documentary evidence unless the attendance of such witnesses or the production of such documentary evidence would be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals. Id. at 419. Due process, however, does not blanketly require allowing an inmate to call witnesses or to produce documentary evidence; rather, a flexible standard must be utilized by the courts to balance the interest of the inmate in avoiding the loss of his good-time benefits against the interests of the prison in institutional safety and correctional goals. Ex parte Bland, 441 So.2d 122 (Ala.1983) (citing Wolff, supra, and Williams, supra).
To meet the due process standard, the disciplinary board's decision must not be arbitrary or capricious, and must be based upon substantial evidence. Washington v. State, 405 So.2d 62 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). The problem confronting this Court on appeal is that the record does not contain sufficient information for a thorough review of the denial of Hawkins's habeas corpus petition. There was no answer or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Boykins
...2"We note, however, that once an inmate actually earns IGT, it may not be taken away without due process. See, e.g., Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489 (Ala.1985); Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). Therefore, while an i......
-
Coslett v. State, CR-96-611
...However, once an inmate does actually earn "good time," it may not be taken away without due process. Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Bland, 441 So.2d 122 (Ala.1983); Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980); Keenan v. Bennett, 613 F.2d 127 (5th Cir.1980); Diamond v.......
-
Atmore v. State, 3 Div. 881
...is reflected on the face of the report, is the committee's statement comprehensible and complete. Our supreme court, in Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489, 491 (Ala.1985), reviewed the committee's statement of findings and found it to be insufficient. However, it considered this statement in c......
-
Williams v. State, 7 Div. 798
...true." Id. at 706 (citing Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1339 (Ala.1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring specially)). See also Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489, 491 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961 (Ala.1984). The allegations in the petition are unrefuted. Since the record is, thus, insuff......
-
Ex parte Boykins
...2"We note, however, that once an inmate actually earns IGT, it may not be taken away without due process. See, e.g., Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489 (Ala.1985); Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). Therefore, while an i......
-
Coslett v. State, CR-96-611
...However, once an inmate does actually earn "good time," it may not be taken away without due process. Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Bland, 441 So.2d 122 (Ala.1983); Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980); Keenan v. Bennett, 613 F.2d 127 (5th Cir.1980); Diamond v.......
-
Atmore v. State, 3 Div. 881
...is reflected on the face of the report, is the committee's statement comprehensible and complete. Our supreme court, in Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489, 491 (Ala.1985), reviewed the committee's statement of findings and found it to be insufficient. However, it considered this statement in c......
-
Williams v. State, 7 Div. 798
...true." Id. at 706 (citing Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1339 (Ala.1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring specially)). See also Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489, 491 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961 (Ala.1984). The allegations in the petition are unrefuted. Since the record is, thus, insuff......