Wolfe v. State
| Decision Date | 03 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 16959,16959 |
| Citation | 759 P.2d 950,114 Idaho 659 |
| Parties | William F. WOLFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
William F. Wolfe, pro se.
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen. by Timothy D. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the summary dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The sole issue is whether the petitioner, an inmate at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI), was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process when he was classified as a "close custody" prisoner. Upon the record presented, we hold that a due process violation has not been established.
When a petition is dismissed without an evidentiary hearing, an appellate court will view the alleged facts in a light most favorable to the petitioner. See Mahaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 228, 392 P.2d 279 (1964). So viewed, the facts here are as follows. Subsequent to his initial incarceration in the ISCI, William Wolfe was moved from "close custody" to "medium" custody, affording him a greater measure of freedom within the prison. Some three years later, Wolfe received a disciplinary offense report for being intoxicated within the prison. A disciplinary hearing on the charge was held and Wolfe was found guilty. Wolfe then was taken before the ISCI Classification Committee for a redetermination of the appropriate custody status. A hearing was held. Wolfe was provided notice of the information to be used against him, the assistance of another inmate in presenting his viewpoint on the classification question, and the opportunity to present witnesses on his behalf.
During the hearing, prison officials presented information gleaned from Wolfe's presentence investigation report to the effect that Wolfe had been charged with escape while previously in custody in California. Evidently, the charge never went to trial. Nevertheless, as a result of the escape charge, Wolfe was assessed a number of classification "points" which rendered him ineligible for the less restrictive "medium" or "minimum" custody. Wolfe then filed a habeas corpus petition in the magistrate division of the district court, alleging that he was denied due process because the presentence report was hearsay evidence of the escape charge and because the charge itself had not been proven. A magistrate denied the petition without a hearing. On appeal to the district court, the magistrate's decision was upheld. This appeal followed.
A threshold question is whether Wolfe possesses a protected liberty interest in his classification status, requiring due process procedural safeguards to be satisfied before that status may be restricted. A protectable liberty interest in custody classification status may be created where a statutory or regulatory scheme provides a legitimate expectation in a particular classification. Cf. Izatt v. State, 104 Idaho 597, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dailey v. Nebraska Dept. of Correctional Services
...required in prison disciplinary cases under the individual state's administrative procedure act. See, e.g., Wolfe v. State, 114 Idaho 659, 661, 759 P.2d 950, 952 (Idaho App.1988) (holding that "[p]rison administrative and disciplinary proceedings are subject neither to the Rules of Evidence......
-
Shunn v. Idaho Dep't. of Corr.
...may create a liberty interest with respect to a prisoner's classification as “maximum security” or “close custody.” See Wolfe v. State, 759 P.2d 950, 951 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988) (“Our Supreme Court already has held that an inmate is entitled to a hearing with minimal procedural safeguards bef......
-
Shunn v. Kootenai Cnty.
...may create a liberty interest with respect to a prisoner's classification as “maximum security” or “close custody.” See Wolfe v. State, 759 P.2d 950, 951 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988) (“Our Supreme Court already has held that an inmate is entitled to a hearing with minimal procedural safeguards bef......
-
Swain v. State, 19753
...regard to the decision of the district court. See e.g., Sivak v. State, 119 Idaho 211, 804 P.2d 940 (Ct.App.1991); Wolfe v. State, 114 Idaho 659, 759 P.2d 950 (Ct.App.1988). The burden of showing error in the proceedings below is on the appellant. Rohr v. Rohr, 118 Idaho 689, 800 P.2d 85 In......