Garlington v. State
Decision Date | 24 February 1989 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 955 |
Citation | 549 So.2d 547 |
Parties | Lynell GARLINGTON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Everette A. Price, Jr., for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Rivard Melson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal follows a denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court is due to be reversed and this cause remanded.
The appellant, an inmate at the Holman Correctional Facility, received a series of twelve separate prison disciplinaries between March 24, 1980, and October 24, 1987. In February, 1988 the appellant filed the habeas corpus petition sub judice, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings failed to satisfy the minimal due process requirements established by the Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). In its motion to dismiss, the State contended, among other things, that the appellant's claims were barred by laches, and that the appellant had been afforded the full range of due process rights to which he was entitled. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, holding, in pertinent part, as follows:
After a careful review of the record, this Court finds it necessary to address only the following disciplinary proceedings, each of which resulted in the appellant's being sentenced to disciplinary segregation: the proceeding held on January 30, 1981, in which the appellant was charged with refusing to work, in violation of Department of Corrections Rule No. 12; and those held on February 17, 1982, April 1, 1982, September 2, 1982, and April 27, 1983, in which he was charged with refusing to obey the direct order of a corrections officer, in violation of Department of Corrections Rule no. 14. The critical omissions in the record are the "written statements" giving the reasons and the evidence relied on by the disciplinary board in making its findings and conclusions.
Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182, 183 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The imposition of disciplinary segregation constitutes the denial of a liberty interest. Wolff, supra, Summerford, supra.
Heidelburg v. State, 522 So.2d 337, 338-39 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). See also Atmore v. State, 530 So.2d 905, 906 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), wherein it was stated that " '[t]he disciplinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial