Jones v. Civil Service Commission, 23459
| Decision Date | 27 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 23459,23459 |
| Citation | 176 Colo. 25,489 P.2d 320 |
| Parties | William A. JONES, Plaintiff in Error, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION of Colorado et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Berge, Martin & Clark, Warren Martin, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paul D. Rubner, Robert L. Hoecker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendants in error.
Jones was discharged from his position of correctional sergeant by the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary. After hearing, the Civil Service Commission upheld the dismissal. On review, pursuant to C.R.S. 1963, 3--16--5, the trial court affirmed the dismissal. Jones by writ of error now seeks reversal of the trial court's judgment. We do not agree that any of the contentions for reversal made by Jones are meritorious.
The penitentiary furnished Jones with a Bill of Particulars in which he was charged with wilfully violating the written and published rules of the penitentiary which prohibited any employee from selling to, buying from, or delivering to any inmate any article or commodity, or otherwise trafficking with the inmates without authorization. He was further charged with gross misconduct unbecoming a state officer or employee under Article X, § 2(t) of the Colorado State Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations. The Bill specified that these charges were based on the fact that Jones connived and conspired with an inmate of the prison to smuggle contraband drugs into the institution and did, in fact, smuggle them into the institution in violation of prison rules and regulations.
Stated briefly, the facts which gave rise to these charges are as follows. The warden of the prison had reason to suspect that drugs were being smuggled into the prison by one or more employees. The warden devised a plan whereby an inmate would approach various employees and attempt to have one of them bring a package into the institution for him. A compound of dextro-amphetamine sulfate was obtained and placed along with two marked $100 bills in a locker at the Pueblo Bus Depot. The key to this locker was given to the inmate and it ultimately came into Jones' possession. Jones was observed picking the package up and returning to Canon City a short time thereafter. Jones transferred the compound from its original container into a plastic bag. This plastic bag with the powder in it was ultimately given to the warden by the inmate. Jones gave one of the $100 bills to his wife and deposited that other in his personal bank account at a Canon City bank.
The record is clear that Jones admitted his actions insofar as picking up the package and taking it back to Canon City when confronted by the warden and other members of the prison staff. Jones also admitted keeping the two bills he found in the package. Although Jones told two different stories on two different occasions, it is clear that, at the very least, he placed the compound in such a location that the inmate had access to it and did retrieve it. Jones refused to sign a statement detailing these facts when asked to do so by the warden. The warden discharged Jones. After conducting a full hearing on the matter and considering written briefs submitted by counsel, the Commission entered its findings and conclusions, which sustained the dismissal.
The Commission found that there had been adequate evidence to prove that Jones had picked up the package and retained the money, while giving the powder to the inmate. The Commission further found that while Jones contended throughout the hearing that he thought there was an organized plan to 'get him,' he did not at any time notify his supervisors of the plan or of the inmate's having requested him to bring a package into the institution for him. The Commission found Jones guilty of a gross violation of the rules and regulations of the prison, as well as of his responsibilities as a prison guard.
Jones first contends that he was denied due process of law in that the procedures followed by the Commission in allowing certain items into evidence did not conform to the procedures required in a criminal proceeding. Jones argues that since he was charged with a criminal act, he should have the benefit of those safeguards applicable to a criminal proceeding.
Jones also argues that he was entrapped into bringing the compound into the prison by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Falco
...date Garrity has not been read to prevent the discharge of the officeholder on the basis of his confession. See Jones v. Civil Service Comm., 489 P.2d 320 (Colo.Sup.Ct.1971); Kammerer v. Board of Fire and Police Com'rs, 44 Ill.2d 500, 256 N.E.2d 12 (Sup.Ct.1970). And yet to say that the 'co......
-
Chase, In re
...is inapplicable and we distinguish it upon the same reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court of Colorado in Jones v. Civil Service Comm. (1971), 176 Colo. 25, 489 P.2d 320. See also Gerace v. County of Los Angeles (1972), Cal.App., 100 Cal.Rptr. 917. What should be the rule in a criminal pros......
-
Campbell v. State, Dept. of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles
...hearing, it is not governed by the strict rules of evidence and procedure which obtain in a criminal action. Jones v. Civil Service Commission, Colo., 489 P.2d 320, announced September 27, The records of the Division of Motor Vehicles are not inadmissible hearsay as claimed by Campbell. C.R......
-
Joseph v. Mieka Corp., 11CA1080.
...a matter of law. See Black Diamond Fund, 211 P.3d at 730 (application of legal standards reviewed de novo); Jones v. Civil Service Comm'n, 176 Colo. 25, 30, 489 P.2d 320, 322 (1971); see also Bourie v. Dep't of Higher Educ., 929 P.2d 18, 21 (Colo.App.1996) (administrative proceedings result......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...173 Colo. 113, 476 P.2d 262 (1970); Harrison v. City & County of Denver, 175 Colo. 249, 487 P.2d 373 (1971); Jones v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 176 Colo. 25, 489 P.2d 320 (1971); T & T Loveland Chinchilla Ranch, Inc. v. Claimants in re Death of Bourn, 178 Colo. 65, 495 P.2d 546 (1972); Buckingham......
-
Government Manufacture of Crime and the Entrapment Defense
...a result of the agent's persistent offers). 62. See Mathews, supra, note 3 at 889 (Scalia concurrence). 63. Jones v. Civil Service Com'n, 489 P.2d 320, 322 (Colo. 1971). But see People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510, 515 (Colo. 1986) (dictum applying entrapment standards to Respondent's claim that......
-
Colorado Property Taxation: Exemption, Abatement and Relief Provisions
...1973, § 39-2-117(3). 45. C.R.S. 1973, § 39-2-117(5). 46. Id. 47. C.R.S. 1973, §§ 24-4-101, et seq. 48. See Jones v. Civil Serv. Comm'n., 176 Colo. 25, 489 P.2d 320 (1971). 49. C.R.S. 1973, § 39-2-125(1)(c). 50. C.R.S. 1973, § 39-8-108(2). Note that the Administrative Procedure Act, in C.R.S......