In re Zepeda
Decision Date | 14 August 2006 |
Docket Number | No. D047776.,D047776. |
Citation | 141 Cal.App.4th 1493,47 Cal.Rptr.3d 172 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re Richard S. ZEPEDA on Habeas Corpus. |
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, James M. Humes, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Frances T. Grunder, Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland and Michelle Des Jardins, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant.
Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent.
Richard S. Zepeda, an inmate at Calipatria State Prison, petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking reversal of disciplinary action imposed upon him by prison officials for possessing a weapon in violation of prison regulations. The court granted the relief requested, concluding that the evidence introduced at Zepeda's prison disciplinary proceeding — consisting primarily of the weapon's location in a cup on a shelf accessible to both Zepeda and his cellmate — was insufficient to support a finding that Zepeda possessed the weapon. Consequently, the court ruled, Zepeda's punishment violated his rights to due process under the federal Constitution and must be reversed.
Stuart Ryan, warden of Calipatria State Prison1 (the Warden) and the respondent to Zepeda's petition, appeals the trial court's ruling. The Warden contends, and we agree, that given the extraordinarily deferential standard of review that applies when a court reviews a challenge to prison disciplinary action on federal due process grounds, the trial court's ruling was erroneous.
On October 1, 2003, Correctional Sergeant J. Valenzuela conducted a routine search of prison cell 106, the cell jointly occupied by Zepeda and another inmate, Johnnie Valadez. During the search, Valenzuela found three razor blades, which had been removed from their plastic casing, inside a paper cup covered with a lid on top of a cement shelf. The shelf was in a common area of the cell, accessible to both inmates. The "plastic cases of the razors" were also located in the cell, although the record does not indicate exactly where in the cell they were found.
Valenzuela showed the cup to Valadez, asking, "Do you recognize this?" Valadez responded, "Yes, that's mine." Valenzuela then held up the three razor blades and asked Valadez, "Do you recognize these?" Valadez responded, "Yes, they [are] mine, I use them to sharpen my pencils." Valenzuela subsequently questioned Zepeda about the razor blades; Zepeda denied having any knowledge of them.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Zepeda for violating a prison rule, California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3006, which states that "[i]nmates may not possess or have under their control any weapons . . . ." (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3006, subd. (a).)2 A subsequent hearing was held at the prison. At the hearing, the evidence regarding the discovery of the razor blades was presented, as well as Valadez's claim of ownership of the cup and razor blades. In addition, under questioning from Zepeda, Sergeant Valenzuela testified that it is common for one inmate to claim responsibility for contraband found in a cell so that the other cellmate is not charged.
After hearing the evidence, the prison official presiding over the hearing concluded that Zepeda had violated California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3006, and, as punishment, revoked 360 days of Zepeda's good conduct credits. (See Pen. Code, § 2932, subd.(a)(1).) Zepeda appealed the decision through two levels of administrative review, and each of his appeals was denied. On March 11, 2005, Zepeda filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Imperial County, seeking restoration of the good conduct credits.
After reviewing the written submissions of the parties, which included the written records of the prison disciplinary proceedings, the trial court granted the relief requested. The court's order states:
As a consequence of its ruling, the court ordered Zepeda's "privileges, time credits, and any other lost benefits as a result of the finding of guilt . . . restored and the disciplinary finding against him . . . removed f[ro]m his file." The Warden appeals.
The Warden contends that the trial court's ruling was erroneous given the standard of review that applies when a court examines disciplinary action taken by prison officials for compliance with the dictates of federal constitutional due process. We review the Warden's contention below after setting forth the legal principles that guide our determination.
The parties dispute the standard of review that applies to the trial court's ruling. Emphasizing "the usual rule, that `evidence must be taken most strongly in support of the order appealed from'" (In re Garcia (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 60, 65, 136 Cal.Rptr. 461 (Garcia)), Zepeda contends we must review the trial court's order deferentially, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the court's ruling. The Attorney General disputes this, arguing that because the trial court held no evidentiary hearing and made no factual findings, the appropriate standard of review is de novo. We agree with the Attorney General.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, once the issues have been properly joined, the court may grant (or deny) the relief sought without ordering an evidentiary hearing as long as resolution of the petition does not depend on any disputed issue of fact. (People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 739, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270, 883 P.2d 388.) When this procedure is employed, as here, to review the evidentiary basis for prison disciplinary action, the trial court's task is simply to evaluate whether, given the documentary record summarizing the facts accepted by the parties, there is sufficient evidence to support the action taken. In such circumstances, the usual deference that would apply to the review of a trial court's ruling based on its superior ability to resolve factual questions (e.g., the credibility of witnesses appearing before it) is unwarranted. The facts being undisputed, the question presented on appeal is a question of law, and we review such questions de novo. (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 677, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104, 59 P.3d 174 [ ]; In re DeLuna (2005) 126 Cal. App.4th 585, 591, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 643 [same]; cf. People v. Duren (1973) 9 Cal.3d 218, 238, 107 Cal.Rptr. 157, 507 P.2d 1365 [].)3
"Some Evidence" Supports the Prison Official's Determination That Zepeda Possessed a Weapon
Zepeda argues that the trial court's order must be affirmed because the Calipatria prison officials acted in violation of his due process rights under the federal Constitution by depriving him of good conduct credits without sufficient evidentiary basis to believe he had committed any infraction.4 We disagree.
When an inmate challenges the revocation of good conduct credits on federal due process grounds, a reviewing court must apply the extraordinarily deferential standard of review set forth in Hill, supra, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356. Under this standard, prison disciplinary action will not be disturbed so long as "some evidence" supports the action taken. (Id. at p. 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768.) (Id. at pp. 455-456, 105 S.Ct. 2768, italics added.)5
Implicit in the "some evidence" standard of review is the recognition that due process requirements imposed by the federal Constitution do not authorize courts to reverse prison disciplinary actions simply because, in the reviewing court's view, there is a realistic possibility the prisoner being disciplined is not guilty of the charged infraction. For example, in Hill itself, the United States Supreme Court determined there was "some evidence" that an inmate was guilty of assault when a guard found an inmate with injuries to the mouth and eye, and dirt strewn about, and observed Hill in a group of three inmates jogging away from the scene. (Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at pp. 447-448, 105 S.Ct. 2768.) Despite the fact that this evidence did not establish that Hill had assaulted the victim, Hill's presence in a group of three inmates, at least one of whom likely had done so, constituted a sufficient evidentiary basis to satisfy due process requirements for purposes of court review of prison disciplinary action. (Ibid.)
Applying the legal standard announced in Hill to the instant case, our independent review of the record demonstrates that, as in Hill, although the evidence adduced at Zepeda's disciplinary hearing was "meager" and "there was no direct evidence identifying" Zepeda as the inmate who committed the infraction (Hill, supra, 472 U.S. at p. 457, 105 S.Ct. 2768), the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the dictates of federal due...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Davis
...to satisfy the ‘some evidence’ standard.” (Id . at p. 214, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 86, 265 P.3d 253 ; accord, In re Zepeda (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1498, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 172 [“some evidence” is “ ‘any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached’ ”], 1499 [quantum of evidence......
-
People v. Davis
...sufficient to satisfy the ‘some evidence’ standard.” (Id. at p. 214, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 86, 265 P.3d 253; accord, In re Zepeda (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1498, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 172 [“some evidence” is “ ‘ any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached’ ”], 1499 [quantum o......
-
In re Harvey Zane JENKINS
...in running the prison system. ( Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658, 673, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 332; In re Zepeda (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1498, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 172; In re Farley (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1361-1362, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 108; Small v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1000......
-
In re Webb
...152 Cal.Rptr.3d 457, quoting In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 677, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104, 59 P.3d 174 ; In re Zepeda (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1497, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 172 [deferential review unwarranted where trial court holds no evidentiary hearing on habeas petition and court grants......