Heidelburg v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 479 |
| Parties | Labarron HEIDELBURG v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
The original opinion in this case, issued on December 8, 1987, is hereby withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor.
Labarron Heidelburg appeals from the trial court's summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenges the constitutionality of four prison disciplinary proceedings. The first disciplinary arose from a charge of assaulting another inmate on May 21, 1986. After a hearing before a disciplinary board or committee, appellant was found guilty and was sentenced, inter alia, to 21 days' "disciplinary segregation." The second disciplinary arose from a charge of assaulting a prison officer on June 3, 1986. After a hearing, appellant was found guilty and was sentenced to 21 days' "disciplinary segregation." The third disciplinary arose from a charge of refusing to work on October 1, 1986. After a hearing, appellant was found guilty and was sentenced, inter alia, to 10 days' "disciplinary segregation." The fourth disciplinary arose from a charge of threatening a prison officer on October 2, 1986. After a hearing, appellant was found guilty and was sentenced, inter alia, to 21 days' "disciplinary segregation."
The initial inquiry in any prison disciplinary case is whether the deprivation suffered by the inmate amounted to the denial of a liberty interest within the meaning of the due process clause. Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The imposition of disciplinary segregation constitutes a denial of a liberty interest, and the due process procedures required under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), on behalf of prisoners are triggered by such imposition. Summerford v. State, supra.
Appellant contends that in each disciplinary proceeding there was not a sufficient written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action, as is required by Wolff v. McDonnell. He also contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the actions of the disciplinary board in each of the proceedings.
The report of the disciplinary board or committee concerning the first disciplinary proceeding referred to above states the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action, as follows: "Guilty due to the arresting officer's statement that inmate Heidelburg crossed the ditch to attack inmate Roach and that inmate Heidelburg admitted to fighting Timothy Roach." In the second proceeding referred to above, the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action were stated as follows: "The arresting officer stated that inmate Heidelburg did in fact assault him by shoving him back with both hands, therefore, the committee finds inmate guilty as charged." In the third proceeding, the evidence relied on and the reasons were stated as follows: In the fourth proceeding, the evidence and reasons for the action were stated: "Based on the arresting officer's statement that defendant refused to work and defendant's admission that he wasn't going to work until he got water; therefore we find the defendant guilty."
One of the minimum requirements of due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding is that there be a "written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons" for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2979; Rice v. State, 460 So.2d 254, 256 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). The written statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. State
...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, 339 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (emphasis in In deciding that a prison disciplinary committee must make a determination of the credibility and reliability......
-
Byers v. State
...record that could support the conclusions reached by the hearing officer. See Thompson, 504 So.2d at 748; see also Heidelburg v. State, 522 So.2d 337, 339 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). "Due process requires that the decision of a state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitrarily ......
-
Bryant v. Ala. Dep't of Corr..
...record that could support the conclusions reached by the hearing officer. See Thompson, 504 So.2d at 748; see also Heidelburg v. State, 522 So.2d 337, 339 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). “ ‘Due process requires that the decision of a state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitraril......
-
Pearsall v. State, 5 Div. 540
...suffered amounted to the denial of a liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. Heidelburg v. State, 522 So.2d 337 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The taking of good time from a prison inmate constitutes a denial of a l......