Hair v. State, 85-1836

Decision Date25 September 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-1836,85-1836
Citation401 N.W.2d 198
PartiesScott B. HAIR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtIowa Court of Appeals

Charles Harrington, Chief Appellate Defender, and Raymond E. Rogers, Asst. Appellate Defender, for petitioner-appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Sarah J. Coats, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent-appellee.

Considered by DONIELSON, P.J., SCHLEGEL, and HAYDEN, JJ.

HAYDEN, Judge.

On July 9, 1984, petitioner, Scott B. Hair, an inmate at the Fort Madison Penitentiary, received a disciplinary notice alleging that he violated penitentiary rules 2, 4, 14, and 27A, relating to assault, extortion, threats/intimidation, and obstructive/disruptive conduct, respectively. The notice was worded as follows:

While you were at Farm I from Jan '84 to May '84 you slapped a confidential informant 3-4 times while you demanded the C.I(s) paychecks; you then told the CI(s) you would settle for $10.00. Out of intimidation, the CI(s) gave you $6.00. You also told the C.I(s) that you would have someone collect for you. The names of the C.I(s) will remain confidential as to devulge [sic] the names would interfere with the security & orderly running of the Institution.

At the disciplinary hearing petitioner denied slapping or strong-arming anyone. On July 17, 1984, the prison disciplinary committee found the petitioner guilty as charged, based on the confidential information, and imposed a punishment of fifteen days of disciplinary detention, one year of administrative segregation, cancellation of honor contract, and loss of all good time the petitioner had earned. Petitioner subsequently appealed unsuccessfully to the warden and the director of the department of adult corrections.

On August 31, 1984, petitioner filed an application for postconviction relief, challenging the disciplinary action on a number of grounds. At the evidentiary hearing held on July 30, 1985, the petitioner testified that he was unable to prepare an adequate defense because the disciplinary notice did not specify the date that the offense occurred and also because the prison refused to disclose the confidential information on which it based its findings. After conducting an in-camera examination of the confidential information, the trial court determined there was sufficient evidence to support the decisions of the disciplinary committee and denied petitioner's application.

Petitioner contends that: (1) the penitentiary's failure to provide him with adequate notice violated the penitentiary's internal rules and petitioner's due process guarantee and (2) the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the findings of the prison disciplinary committee.

Initially, we note that postconviction proceedings are treated as actions at law. Kelly v. Nix, 329 N.W.2d 287, 291 (Iowa 1983). Because fundamental constitutional rights are involved, our review is de novo in light of the totality of the circumstances and record upon which the court ruling was made. Wagner v. State, 364 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Iowa 1985).

I.

Petitioner asserts the notice was defective because it contained no date or time for the alleged incident which prevented him from preparing an adequate defense, thereby violating due process. The State contends the notice given petitioner was constitutionally sufficient and any deviation in procedure was insubstantial and nonprejudicial.

In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), the Supreme Court noted:

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. (Citation omitted.) In sum, there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application.

Id. at 556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d at 951.

In Wolff, the Court held the prisoner must be given (1) advance written notice of the alleged violation and (2) a written statement in the findings of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the discipline inflicted. Id. at 563, 94 S.Ct. at 2978, 41 L.Ed.2d at 955. See Rushing v. State, 382 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Iowa 1986); Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 285 N.W.2d 751, 756 (Iowa 1979); and Hoeppner v. State, 379 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Iowa Ct.App.1985).

"Part of the function of notice is to give the charged party a chance to marshal facts in his defense and to clarify what the charges are, in fact." Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2978, 41 L.Ed.2d at 955.

As petitioner contends, both the penitentiary's rules and federal case law state that notice must include: the date and the general time the incident took place. See Rinehart v. Brewer, 483 F.Supp. 165, 169 (S.D.Iowa 1980). We hinge our consideration on whether petitioner was afforded his due process rights.

Here the evidence used against the petitioner was based solely on the testimony of confidential informants. Regarding this situation, we note and adopt the following:

The reality is that disciplinary hearings and the imposition of disagreeable sanctions necessarily involve confrontations between inmates and authority and between inmates who are being...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Goff v. Dailey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • March 27, 1992
    ...rules ..." Engel v. Wendl, 921 F.2d 148, 150 (8th Cir.1991); see Wilson v. Farrier, 372 N.W.2d 499, 502 (Iowa 1985); Hair v. State, 401 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Iowa App.1986). Defendants in their post-trial brief cite Engel v. Wendl for the proposition that "the `some evidence' standard is the pro......
  • Key v. State, 96-614
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1998
    ...541 N.W.2d at 871 (notice charging inmate with involvement in gang activity during four-month period was sufficient); Hair v. State, 401 N.W.2d 198, 199-200 (Iowa App.1986) (notice charging inmate with assault and other violations during six-month period was sufficient). This is especially ......
  • James v. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1995
    ...any more specific factual information would seriously risk exposing identity of confidential sources of information); Hair v. State, 401 N.W.2d 198, 199-200 (Iowa App.1986) (notice to inmate specifying five-month period in which occurrence happened provided inmate with sufficient notice to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT