Summerford v. State
Decision Date | 12 February 1985 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 946 |
Citation | 466 So.2d 182 |
Parties | Mark Ed SUMMERFORD v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
G. Houston Howard II of Howard, Dunn, Howard & Howard, Wetumpka, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Bernard B. Carr, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges that he was denied procedural due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding which resulted in the loss of two weeks' store privilege and two weeks' extra duty.
Specifically, petitioner alleges that the disciplinary report does not show that the testimony of the arresting officer was presented under oath, that there was no substantial evidence offered to support the charge, and that the statement by the factfinders of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action does not satisfy the requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
We express no opinion on the merits of petitioner's claims since we conclude that the procedural due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell simply do not apply to the deprivations suffered by petitioner here. The procedures outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Wolff are triggered either by the loss of good time credits or by major changes in the conditions of confinement, such as the imposition of disciplinary segregation, neither of which petitioner encountered.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 571-72 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 2982 n. 19.
Although some lower federal courts have extended the protections guaranteed by Wolff to disciplinaries resulting only in the loss of privileges, see, e.g., Ward v. Johnson, 667 F.2d 1126 (4th Cir.1981) ( ), neither the United States Supreme Court interpreting the federal writ of habeas corpus nor the Alabama Supreme Court interpreting our State habeas remedy has required Wolff procedures for the mere deprivation of privileges. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 323, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1560, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976). Petitioner directs our attention to Helveston v. State, 454 So.2d 1051 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), wherein we applied the Wolff procedural requirements to a disciplinary resulting in deprivations less drastic than removal of good time credits. Concurring specially in Helveston, Judge Taylor observed the following:
While the petitioner in Helveston did not lose good time, he did receive "90 days in the segregation unit" in addition to the withdrawal of certain privileges. We judged his disciplinary hearing in light of Wolff procedures because as, the Supreme Court observed in Wolff, either the loss of good time or disciplinary confinement triggers the due process requirements mandated in that case. Even prior to Helveston, we indicated that loss of good time was not the sole occurrence which would trigger the requirements of Wolff. In Fielding v. State, 409 So.2d 964 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), we noted that, even if the withdrawal of petitioner's good time were ignored, the minimum requirements of due process would apply to his disciplinary, because his custody classification was changed from minimum to maximum. 409 So.2d at 965. Thus, Helveston is neither a departure from the established principles of procedural due process enunciated in Wolff nor from the prior pronouncements of this court.
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, 223-24, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2537-38, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). Answering this inquiry as it related to prisoners transferred from one State prison to another prison with less favorable conditions, the United States Supreme Court declared:
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. at 224, 225, 96 S.Ct. at 2538 (emphasis in original). The "liberty interest" test consistently applied by the Court to inmate deprivation is as follows:
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468, 103 S.Ct. 864, 870, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). In Hewitt v. Helms, supra, the inmate was removed from his cell, placed in non-disciplinary administrative segregation, and questioned regarding his role in a prison riot. Following the questioning, he was put in restrictive confinement pending an investigation of those responsible for the riot. Rejecting the argument that the inmate's temporary segregation called for the full panoply of procedural rights outlined in Wolff, the Court concluded that the inmate was merely due "some notice" of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunter v. CPL. Breining
... ... pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) ... because Hunter's claims either are frivolous or fail to ... state a claim upon which relief can be granted ... I ... Complaint. (Doc. 8) ... The ... State , ... 675 So.2d 87, 88 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), or in being required to ... perform extra work. Summerford v. State , 466 So.2d ... 182, 185 (Ala.Crim.App.1985) ... To ... determine if Hunter has a liberty interest, the ... ...
-
Juzang v. Smith
...privileges, Dumas v. State, 675 So.2d 87, 88 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), or in being required to perform extra work. Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182, 185 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). An inmate's ability to visit, to shop, and to use the telephone is heavily restricted while in prison. While Juzang asse......
-
Juzang v. Smith
... ... service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ... 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which ... relief may be granted ... I ... Proceedings ... A ... Dumas v. State , 675 So.2d 87, 88 ... (Ala.Crim.App.1995), or in being required to perform extra ... work. Summerford v. State , 466 So.2d 182, 185 ... (Ala.Crim.App.1985). An inmate's ability to visit, to ... shop, and to use the telephone is heavily ... ...
-
Ex parte Boykins
...process. See, e.g., Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489 (Ala.1985); Gowers v. State, 766 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). Therefore, while an inmate does not have a liberty interest in earning IGT, he does enjoy a liberty interest in retain......