Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 24 February 1989
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 143
• Citation: 564 So.2d 999
• Parties: Robert L. JOHNSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 999

564 So.2d 999

Robert L. JOHNSON v. STATE.

7 Div. 143.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 24, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1989.

Robert Johnson, pro se.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

McMILLAN, Judge.

This appeal arises out of the denial of the appellant's habeas corpus petition by the St. Clair County Circuit Court.

The appellant, an inmate at the St. Clair County Correctional Facility, received a series of four separate prison disciplinaries between July 16, 1988, and July 26, 1988. In September, 1988, the appellant filed the habeas corpus petition sub judice, seeking relief from the punishment prescribed by the disciplinary committee, on the ground that his right to due process had been violated. The State then filed a motion to dismiss the appellant's petition, which was summarily granted by the trial court.

The appellant challenges the constitutionality of the disciplinary proceedings conducted on the following dates: July 28, 1988; July 30, 1988 (2 separate hearings were conducted on this date); and July 31, 1988. Because this Court finds that the disciplinary reports for the proceedings held on July 29, 1988, and July 31, 1988, do not contain a sufficient written statement of the evidence relied upon by the disciplinary committee, this cause is due to be reversed.

"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. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-224, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2537-38, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976)." 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 v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Summerford, supra.

In Wolff, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that, where a prison disciplinary hearing could result in the deprivation of a liberty interest, certain minimal due process requirements must be met. For example, the inmate must be given written notice of the charges against him at least 24 hours prior to his hearing. The inmate should likewise be allowed to call witnesses on his behalf, where to do so would not jeopardize inmate security or correctional goals. He is also entitled to a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Id., 418 U.S. at 563-67, 94 S.Ct. at 2978-80.

In Atmore v. State, 530 So.2d 905 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the appellant's habeas corpus petition, finding that the evidence on which the disciplinary committee relied, as reflected by its statement, did not establish the commission of the infraction charged.

" 'The disciplinary report in and of itself should contain a meaningful statement setting forth the the essential facts relied upon.' [The appellant's] admission, as reflected by the committee's statement, does not contain the necessary or essential facts...."

Id., at 906. (Emphasis added in earlier report; citations omitted.)

In the July 29, 1988,...