State ex rel. McCreadie v. Abrahamson, 89-1473

Decision Date08 March 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-1473,89-1473
Citation455 N.W.2d 914,155 Wis.2d 467
PartiesNOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. STATE of Wisconsin ex rel. Peter MCCREADIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gordon ABRAHAMSON, Respondent.
CourtWisconsin Court of Appeals

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Dodge county: JOSEPH E. SCHULTZ, Judge.

Circuit Court, Dodge County.

AFFIRMED.

Before EICH, C.J., and GARTZKE, P.J., and SUNDBY, J.

EICH, Chief Judge.

Peter McCreadie appeals from an order upholding a decision of the Dodge Correctional Institution adjustment committee. 1 The committee found McCreadie guilty of entering another inmate's quarters and reprimanded him as discipline. McCreadie raises three issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the committee's determination of guilt; (2) whether the trial court erred in remanding the case to allow the committee to state its reasons for the disposition; and (3) whether the reasons stated by the committee after remand were adequate. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the committee's decision, that the court could properly remand instead of reversing outright, and that the committee's statement of the reasons for imposing a reprimand was adequate.

McCreadie was issued a conduct report charging him with violation of a prison rule prohibiting inmates from entering other inmates' living quarters. Wis.Adm.Code, sec. HSS 303.52. The report, which contained a prison officer's description of the incident--essentially that he had found McCreadie watching television in another inmate's room--was received in evidence at the disciplinary hearing. The committee also received McCreadie's prepared statement giving his version of the incident. The committee, in a written decision, found McCreadie guilty because he "admitted [in his statement] that he was in another inmate's room" and, as a sanction for the violation, issued a reprimand. The decision, however, failed to state any reasons for the disposition.

McCreadie sought certiorari review in circuit court. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the committee's determination of guilt; however, it remanded the case to the committee to allow it to provide reasons for its disposition. On remand, the committee stated that the reason for deciding to issue the reprimand was, in sum, that McCreadie was aware of the rule and had intentionally violated it. The court held that statement to be adequate and affirmed the committee's decision in its entirety.

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Certiorari is not a de novo review. Where the sufficiency of the evidence to support an administrative determination is challenged, we may not weigh the evidence; we are limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination. State ex rel. Gibson v. H & SS Department, 86 Wis.2d 345, 349, 272 N.W.2d 395, 398 (Ct.App.1978). In no case may we substitute our view of the evidence for that of the agency. Van Ermen v. H & SS Department, 84 Wis.2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17, 20 (1978).

We believe the committee could reasonably conclude that McCreadie, in his prepared statement, admitted that he had entered another inmate's quarters. McCreadie stated that:

Concerning entry of another inmate's quarters, this is something that had been allowed in the past ... and therefore was not considered to be "in force" at the time of the alleged infraction.... No conduct reports had been written on prior occasions and I was never even warned of an infraction although the officer was aware of this having happened on prior occasions.

McCreadie did not deny that he was in another inmate's quarters and his statement could reasonably be read as admitting that he was in another inmate's quarters, and that he did not consider it to be a rule violation because the rule had not been consistently enforced in the past.

The Constitution does not require that the evidence relied upon logically preclude any conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board. Culbert v. Young, 834 F.2d 624, 631 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 1296 (1988) (applying the Wisconsin Administrative Code). We are satisfied that the evidence relied on by the committee in this case--McCreadie's written statement and the officer's conduct report--provides adequate support for its conclusion that he had violated the rule.

McCreadie also suggests that the committee's statement of the reasons underlying its decision was inadequate. Due process requires prison disciplinary committees to set forth the reasons for their decisions. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563 (1974). But we do not require "lengthy or detailed findings of fact." State ex rel. Meeks v. Gagnon, 95 Wis.2d 115, 125, 289 N.W.2d 357, 363-64 (Ct.App.1980). It is sufficient that the committee says enough "to tell a future reader, such as a parole board member [or a reviewing court], what the problem was and why is was decided as it was." Id. at 115, 289 N.W.2d at 364. The committee's reference to McCreadie's admission is adequate under these standards.

II. THE DISPOSITION AND THE REMAND

McCreadie's argument is two-fold. He claims first that the trial court should have simply reversed the committee's determination, rather than remand for further consideration. He also contends that the reasons for the disposition eventually provided by the committee were inadequate.

Just as it must state the reasons underlying its finding of guilt, the committee...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT