Puckett v. Stuckey, No. 91-CA-0318

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: Before HAWKINS; PITTMAN; HAWKINS
• Citation: 633 So.2d 978
• Parties: Steve PUCKETT, Superintendent of Mississippi State Penitentiary, Ed Hargett, Deputy Superintendent of Treatment at Mississippi State Penitentiary, and Christopher Epps, Chief of Security at Mississippi State Penitentiary v. Frank STUCKEY, Jr.
• Decision Date: 09 December 1993
• Docket Number: No. 91-CA-0318

Page 978

633 So.2d 978 Steve PUCKETT, Superintendent of Mississippi State
Penitentiary, Ed Hargett, Deputy Superintendent of Treatment
at Mississippi State Penitentiary, and Christopher Epps,
Chief of Security at Mississippi State Penitentiary
v.
Frank STUCKEY, Jr. No. 91-CA-0318. Supreme Court of Mississippi. Dec. 9, 1993.
Rehearing Denied April 14, 1994.

Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., John L. Clay, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Leonard C. Vincent, Parchman, for appellants.

Frank Stuckey, pro se.

Before HAWKINS, C.J., and PITTMAN and BANKS, JJ.

PITTMAN, Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal by State Respondents from an adverse decision rendered by the Circuit Court of Sunflower County in a prisoner's rights case.

On October 11, 1990, Frank Stuckey, Jr. (Stuckey), inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, filed this action against Steven William Puckett, Superintendent of Mississippi State Penitentiary; Ed Hargett, Deputy Superintendent of Treatment at Mississippi State Penitentiary, and Christopher Epps, Chief of Security at Mississippi State Penitentiary. Stuckey alleged the parties, without just cause or reason, denied him visiting privileges by his wife, Phyllis.

The circuit court magistrate ordered a response to be filed to Stuckey's petition.

The State Respondents answered by filing a document entitled "Report to the Court"

Page 979

which admitted that Phyllis' visiting privileges had been suspended because she received the proceeds of an altered money order in a case under investigation by the postal authorities. The Report further recited, "visiting is a privilege and not a right at this institution and ... the Mississippi Department of Corrections has penological interest and discretion in giving permission or preventing an ex-correctional officer or anyone who is under investigation by the postal authorities." ¹

The State respondents filed a supplemental report which alleged that the Mississippi Highway Patrol Criminal Investigation Division developed intelligence information that Phyllis was trafficking drugs, contraband, and money to Stuckey in the penitentiary. The report further alleged that Phyllis and Stuckey were involved in the U.S. Postal money order fraud scheme being investigated by the U.S. Postal authorities. The supplemental report admitted that "the Mississippi Department of Corrections has terminated the visiting rights of Mrs. Stuckey."

The cause was set for hearing before the circuit court magistrate.

On March 5, 1991, subsequent to a hearing, the magistrate rendered her "Findings and Recommendations" which state inter alia:

Mrs. Phyllis Stuckey, wife of petitioner Frank Stuckey, has been denied visiting privileges, for an indefinite period of time, based upon allegations that she received the proceeds of an altered money order.

Testimony adduced at the hearing established that Mrs. Stuckey voluntarily met with the postal authorities early in 1990. Said investigation by the United States Postal authorities was conducted in March or April of 1990.

A concurrent investigation by the Mississippi Highway Patrol Criminal Investigation Division has been concluded and no charges have been filed against Mrs. Stuckey.

The United States Postal authorities initiated an investigation of the alleged money order scheme over one year ago. Although the Sunflower County Grand Jury has met several times, there has been no action or criminal charges filed against Mrs. Stuckey.

It is the finding of the undersigned that the Mississippi Department of Corrections presented no valid basis for the suspension of visiting privileges.

It is therefore recommended that the visiting privileges of Mrs. Phyllis Stuckey be restored.

The following objections to the magistrate's findings were filed by the State respondents:

(1) Visitation is a privilege subject to the discretion of prison officials; and

(2) The magistrate erred as a matter of law by assuming jurisdiction of this matter, and ruling that Mississippi Department of Corrections had to present a valid basis for the suspension of visiting privileges.

The circuit court, Honorable Howard Q. Davis, Jr. presiding, after reviewing the file, approved and adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendations, and rendered an order restoring Stuckey's visitation privileges with his wife. The order states, inter alia:

The Department of Corrections is correct in its interpretation of the law as the fact "that visitation is a privilege subject to the discretion of prison officials." They are wrong, however, when they assume that this is an absolute and not subject to review by this Court. The issue is not the Department of Corrections' right to establish policy; it is whether the application of that policy violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. See, Wolff v. McDonald (sic), 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

The Magistrate held a hearing on this matter and found in favor of Mr. Stuckey. There is no allegation by the Department of Corrections that the Magistrate erred as to the application of the Due Process Clause, only that she erred in "ruling that the Mississippi Department of Corrections had to present a valid basis for the suspension of visiting privilege." The Department

Page 980

of Corrections is wrong; the Magistrate is right.

The State respondents appeal, presenting the following issues:

(1) Whether the trial court correctly ruled that a prisoner is entitled to due process of the law when his visiting privileges are restricted or terminated;

(2) Whether a prisoner has a constitutional right to visitation when incarcerated; and

(3) Whether a prisoner's constitutional right must yield to prison administrative rules and regulations when exercised in furtherance of legitimate penological objectives.

The circuit court's ruling and the issues presented on appeal by the State respondents miss the rationale of the magistrate's findings of fact and resulting conclusions. It is not necessary that we address the constitutional issues discussed in the appellate briefs for proper resolution of the controversy. While the circuit court erroneously hinged its decision on due process rights, we are not restricted to the court's rationale or its reasons for the result it reached. On appeal, we will affirm a decision of the circuit court where the right result is reached even though we may disagree with the reason for that result. Stewart v. Walls, 534 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Miss.1988).

As admitted by appellee in his brief, this Court in Terrell v. State addressed the visitation rights of inmates:

Visitation rights of the inmates are accorded the discretion of prison officials...