Villa v. Gunter, 92CA1708
| Decision Date | 07 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92CA1708,92CA1708 |
| Citation | 862 P.2d 1033 |
| Parties | C. Frank VILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank GUNTER, Executive Director, Department of Corrections, Bill Boggs, Superintendent, Rifle Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
C. Frank Villa, pro se.
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Paul S. Sanzo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents-appellees.
Opinion by Judge PLANK.
Petitioner, C. Frank Villa, appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing his C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) petition, by which he sought review of the prison disciplinary action taken by respondents, who are Department of Corrections employees. We reverse the judgment and remand with directions.
Petitioner was an inmate in the Rifle Correctional Facility of the Colorado Department of Corrections. It was alleged that, as part of a dispute with a corrections officer over the quality of certain food petitioner had been served, he stepped behind the serving line, raised his voice, and ultimately threw the food at the corrections officer. He was charged with three violations of the Code of Penal Discipline, including assault, advocating facility disruption, and violation of a posted operational rule.
A hearing with a hearing board composed of three officers was convened pursuant to the Colorado Code of Penal Discipline. One of the hearing board officers, had been on duty at the control center at the time of the incident. After the incident, the complaining officer phoned a report of the incident to that officer.
Upon learning at the hearing that one of the members of the board had received a report of the incident, petitioner protested that member's participation in the proceedings. Petitioner also sought to call the challenged board member as a witness to testify concerning the report which had been made to him, in support of petitioner's theory that the complaining officer had fabricated the charge against him. The officer presiding over the hearing noted petitioner's protest, but refused to permit the board member to be questioned.
The board found petitioner guilty of the assault and disruption charges and not guilty of violating the posted rule. A sentence of 30 days segregation and withdrawal of 45 days of good time credits was imposed.
Petitioner appealed this decision to the facility supervisor. Petitioner alleged that he had not been permitted to question the challenged board member and that that member was not impartial. The supervisor modified the hearing board's conclusions, finding that the challenged member had not been biased and had no personal knowledge of the incident. It is apparent from the modified ruling, however, that evidence obtained outside the hearing was considered by the supervisor. The sentence was reduced to 20 days of segregation and withdrawal of 15 days of good time credits.
Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), alleging that his right to due process had been violated by the failure to have an impartial hearing board and the failure to permit him to call witnesses on his behalf. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that petitioner had received the due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boles v. BARTRUFF
...inmate's right to due process has been violated when that inmate was denied the opportunity to call a witness. See Villa v. Gunter, 862 P.2d 1033, 1034-35 (Colo.App.1993). Federal courts have held the same. See, e.g., Grossman v. Bruce, 447 F.3d 801, 805 (10th Cir.2006) (denial of inmate's ......
-
Buenabenta v. Neet
...quasi-judicial activity that may be reviewed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Kodama v. Johnson, 786 P.2d 417 (Colo.1990); Villa v. Gunter, 862 P.2d 1033 (Colo.App.1993). Our review of the quasi-judicial actions of the prison disciplinary board, like that of the district court, is limited to......
-
Washington v. Atherton, No. 99CA1183.
...of due process. We disagree. An inmate in a disciplinary hearing enjoys only the most basic due process rights. See Villa v. Gunter, 862 P.2d 1033 (Colo.App.1993); see also Mariani v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 956 P.2d 625 (Colo.App.1997). However, due process does require, at a m......
-
Gallegos v. Garcia
...or whether it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying an application for a liquor license. Similarly, in Villa v. Gunter, 862 P.2d 1033 (Colo.App. 1993), on review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), a division of this court remanded for a new hearing where a factual question existed regarding ......
-
Judicial Review of Prison Quasi-judicial Hearings Under Rule 106.5
...additional findings regarding confidential information). [64] Gallegos v. Garcia, 155 P.3d 405, 408 (Colo.App. 2006); Villa v. Gunter, 862 P.2d 1033, 1035 (Colo.App. 1993). [65] Phillips, 251 P.3d at 1179, reh'g denied (Nov. 18, 2010); Burns v. Exec. Dir., Colo. Dep't of Corn, 183 P.3d 695,......