Williams v. State, 7 Div. 798

• Decision Date: 28 April 1987
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 798
• Citation: 507 So.2d 1052
• Parties: Gary Wade WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1052

507 So.2d 1052

Gary Wade WILLIAMS v. STATE.

7 Div. 798.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 1987.

Gary Wade Williams, pro se.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Gerrilyn Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Gary Wade Williams, appeals the trial court's summary denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein he alleged that he was deprived of liberty interests by a disciplinary proceeding which had been conducted without due process. As a result of being deemed guilty by a disciplinary committee for violating the prison rule prohibiting possession of an unauthorized escape device, Williams was ordered to serve twenty-one days in disciplinary segregation, and the committee further recommended that his custody status be changed from medium to close. In his petition, Williams alleged the following: (1) The committee refused to honor Williams' request to procure the testimony of Officer Henry, who was assigned to another facility, but was receiving training at St. Clair Correctional Facility at the time of the incident, and, allegedly, was the officer who discovered the two hacksaw blades in Williams' cell; (2) the evidence considered by the committee was insufficient because it consisted only of the statement of Officer Hicks, who allegedly was not the officer who discovered the contraband, and because the hacksaw blades were not presented at the disciplinary hearing; (3) the committee's statement "We believe the Arresting Officer's statement that he found the hacksaw blades in Williams'[s] cell" is conclusory; (4) the arresting officer was also the investigating officer; (5) the notice of the charge was incomplete because it failed to designate whether the charge was a major or a minor disciplinary; (6) the committee failed to consider seven written questions which were submitted by Williams; and (7) contrary to prison regulation, the imposed sanctions were not executed until twenty-one days after the warden's concurrence. The record reflects absolutely no response by the State. Upon this record, the trial court denied Williams' petition.

The attorney general asks that this cause be remanded for an evidentiary hearing "because the record of the prison disciplinary proceedings [is] insufficient to allow a determination of whether the prison disciplinary board complied with due process standards or whether its actions were arbitrary and capricious." (Memorandum Brief, p. 1.) We agree. The petition is meritorious on its face, and Williams is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Bartlette v. State, 472 So.2d 706 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). "Where the State does not file an answer or return denying the specific allegations of fact in the petition, the facts as set out in the petition must be taken as true." Id. at 706 (citing Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1339 (Ala.1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring specially)). See also Ex parte Hawkins, 475 So.2d 489, 491 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961 (Ala.1984). The allegations in the petition are unrefuted. Since the record is, thus, insufficient to support a proper determination of the merits of Williams' claims, an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Bartlette; Washington v. State, 405 So.2d 62 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).

We particularly take note of the attorney general's admission that "[s]pecifically, there is nothing in the disciplinary report to show whether or not Appellant was allowed to have his witnesses present at the disciplinary hearing." (Memorandum Brief, p. 1.) We once again observe the following:

"[W]e call the recent case of Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 [105 S.Ct. 2192, 85 L.Ed.2d 553] (1985), to the attention of the trial court and the prison authorities. In Ponte v. Real, the Supreme Court elaborated on its Wolff v. McDonnell [, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974),] position regarding the necessity...