Williams v. State, 5 Div. 871
Decision Date | 17 July 1984 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 871 |
Citation | 461 So.2d 1335 |
Parties | Lynn D. WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert S. Milner, Wetumpka, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Callen Sparrow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Williams appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of a disciplinary proceeding which resulted in the loss of one year of good time. He was charged with possession of contraband in violation of prison regulations. The record discloses that as a result of information furnished by an informer, appellant's bed was searched by an officer named Swain, who found an "ashtray with folded paper inside which contain [sic] some seeds and a green leafy substance" under the mattress. Williams alleges in his petition that there was insufficient evidence for the Disciplinary Board to find him guilty as charged, that he was denied the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them, and that he was denied the right to a fair and impartial hearing board. The State moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the hearing complained of met the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), that the court had no jurisdiction to review substantive matters in disciplinary proceedings, and that the petition was not properly verified as required by § 15-21-4, Code of Alabama 1975.
A petition for habeas corpus is the proper method by which a prisoner who claims to be deprived of his good time credit without due process of law can challenge the results of his disciplinary hearing. Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980).
The record in this case does not contain an answer or return denying the allegations of fact in the petition. The memoranda and affidavits filed with the State's motion to dismiss the habeas corpus petition contain no facts which contradict those facts set out in the petition. Therefore, the unrefuted facts set out in the petition must be taken as true. Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961 (Ala.1984); Vaughan v. State, 415 So.2d 1231 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).
The due process requirements set out in Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, and approved by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Williams v. Davis, supra, are summarized as follows:
Williams contends on appeal that he did not receive the required advance notice of the hearing. The record shows that the hearing was held at 11:25 p.m., November 16, 1983, and that he received notice at 5:38 p.m., November 14, 1983. It thus appears from the record that he received timely and adequate notice and therefore his contention to the contrary is without merit.
He further contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of guilty by the Board. The evidence relied upon was the testimony of the arresting officer, who stated, "While searching inmate Williams's bed I found an ashtray with folded paper inside which contain [sic] some seeds and a green leafy substance". The Board's finding upon which it based its decision was: "Guilty due to the fact that officer Swain did search the bed assigned to inmate Williams and in the process found what appeared to be marijuana under the mattress". There was no other evidence introduced showing that the substance was in fact marijuana.
In Washington v. State, 405 So.2d 62 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), this court held:
"To comport with due process the Board's decision must not have been made arbitrarily or capriciously but should have been based upon 'substantial evidence'."
This court stated in Vick v. State, 448 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1984):
We were faced with a similar factual situation in Barker v. State, 437 So.2d 1375 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), where we stated:
In the instant case the only evidence that the material found was contraband was the statement of Officer Swain that it "appeared to be marijuana". No opinion by a person qualified from experience to give such an opinion was offered. The Board did not find that the substance was marijuana, but only that it "appeared to be marijuana". This falls short of constituting "substantial evidence" of guilt as required by the decisions of this court in Washington v. State, supra; Vick v. State, supra; and Barker v. State, supra....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shuttle v. Patrissi
...corpus to prisoners to review prison disciplinary measures that result in the deprivation of liberty. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1335, 1337 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (habeas corpus provides proper method for relief from deprivation of good time credits); Schaffer v. Steinert, 40 Conn......
-
Daughtry v. State
...1365 (Ala.1990); Hunter v. State, 515 So.2d 114 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Evans v. State, 485 So.2d 402 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1335 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 461 So.2d 1339 We find the language of Barker to be inapplicable to the instant case because in Barker the disci......
-
Walden v. State, 8 Div. 299
...of a prison disciplinary committee must be fair and impartial. Ex parte Crear, 460 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Ala.1983); Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1335, 1338-39 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte State, 461 So.2d 1339 (Ala.1984). However, the mere fact that Officer Sims "witnessed" the stateme......
-
Headley v. State, CR-96-2469
...(Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1990) (cases abrogated due to change to "some evidence" standard); Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1335 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 461 So.2d 1339 The trial court's summary denial of the appellant's petition without an evidentiary hearing w......