Gowers v. State
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | COBB. |
| Citation | 766 So.2d 986 |
| Parties | Jonathan H. GOWERS v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2000 |
766 So.2d 986
Jonathan H. GOWERSv.
STATE
CR-99-0344.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
March 31, 2000.
Jonathan H. Gowers, appellant, pro se.
Andrew W. Redd, general counsel, and Albert Sim Butler, asst. general counsel, Department of Corrections, for appellee.
COBB, Judge.
Jonathan Gowers appeals from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Gowers is a prison inmate charged in a prison disciplinary proceeding with promoting contraband by assisting another inmate in obtaining a .25 caliber pistol, which that inmate then used to take hostages. The prison disciplinary hearing was conducted before a hearing officer on February 19, 1997. The hearing officer found him guilty as charged, and Gowers was ordered to serve 45 days disciplinary segregation. Additionally, Gowers lost all his accrued good time and was removed from good-time status for one year. On September 10, 1999, Gowers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Circuit Court of Escambia County, alleging that the disciplinary proceeding failed to comport with due process requirements because, he argued, the finding of guilt was based solely on hearsay testimony. On November 9, 1999, the circuit court dismissed the petition, calling the action frivolous, as that term is defined by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and ordered Gowers to pay a $140 filing fee. This appeal follows.
On appeal, Gowers restates his argument that he was denied the minimum due process requirements established in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), when the disciplinary hearing officer made a decision based solely on hearsay testimony. We first note that the loss of good time constitutes a denial of a liberty interest that triggers the due process requirements established in Wolff v. McDonnell. Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Crim. App.1985). In discussing the due process requirements of a prison disciplinary hearing, this court has stated:
"Due process requires that the decision of a state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitrarily or capriciously, but be based upon some evidence. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Heidelburg v. State [522 So.2d 337 (Ala.Crim.App.1988)]....766 So.2d 987Hearsay testimony may be admissible in prison disciplinary hearings; however, it may not alone be sufficient to support a finding of
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Boykins
...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 inmate does not have a liberty interest i......
-
Byers v. State
...636 So.2d 696, 697 (Ala. Crim.App.1993). See also Oliver v. State, 770 So.2d 1116, 1117-18 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000); and Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 The disciplinary reports in the record indicate that the hearing officer's finding of guilt was based on "the arresting officer's incident......
-
Bryant v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.., CR–09–1375.
...636 So.2d 696, 697 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). See also Oliver v. State, 770 So.2d 1116, 1117–18 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); and Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).”Byers v. State, 856 So.2d 954, 956–57 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). In this case, the sole evidence upon which the finding of guilt w......
-
Ex parte Boykins
...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 inmate does not have a liberty interest i......
-
Byers v. State
...636 So.2d 696, 697 (Ala. Crim.App.1993). See also Oliver v. State, 770 So.2d 1116, 1117-18 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000); and Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 The disciplinary reports in the record indicate that the hearing officer's finding of guilt was based on "the arresting officer's incident......
-
Bryant v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.., CR–09–1375.
...636 So.2d 696, 697 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). See also Oliver v. State, 770 So.2d 1116, 1117–18 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); and Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).”Byers v. State, 856 So.2d 954, 956–57 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). In this case, the sole evidence upon which the finding of guilt w......