Zamudio v. State, CR-91-1920
| Citation | 615 So.2d 156 |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | CR-91-1920 |
| Parties | George M. ZAMUDIO v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
George M. Zamudio, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Harry Lyles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, George M. Zamudio, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was disciplined for attempting to mail a letter to a fellow inmate by having someone outside the prison system mail the letter. He was found guilty by the hearing officer and was punished by losing 30 days' store and telephone privileges and was given 30 days of extra work duty.
The appellant argues that he was denied his due process rights guaranteed by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). On many occasions, this court has determined this issue adversely to the petitioner by unpublished memorandum. Because of the frequent occurrence of this type of case, we have chosen to write an opinion in this instance.
The United States Supreme Court in Wolff set forth several requirements that must be followed in a prison disciplinary proceeding. The accused must be given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to call witnesses and must be provided with a written statement of the reasons that the committee or hearing officer held the way it did. Before the protections of Wolff are triggered, we must look at the punishment received as a result of the violation of the disciplinary rules.
"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." Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182, 183 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).
466 So.2d at 184. Store and telephone privileges are not liberty interests, nor does a prisoner have a right not to have extra work duty imposed, Summerford.
As this court further stated in Summerford:
"Neither the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byers v. State
...and the reasons for the decision of the disciplinary body. See Brown v. State, 592 So.2d 621, 623 (Ala.1991); and Zamudio v. State, 615 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala. Crim.App.1993). In Thompson v. State, 504 So.2d 747, 748 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), this Court, relying on Superintendent, Massachusetts Cor......
-
Bryant v. Ala. Dep't of Corr..
...on and the reasons for the decision of the disciplinary body. See Brown v. State, 592 So.2d 621, 623 (Ala.1991); and Zamudio v. State, 615 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). In Thompson v. State, 504 So.2d 747, 748 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), this Court relying on Superintendent, Massachusetts Co......
-
Young v. Gordy
...(1985). 6. Alabama courts have determined that a prisoner does not have a liberty interest in store privileges, Zamudio v. State, 615 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993); Summerford v. State, 466 So.2d 182, 185 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), in telephone privileges, Zamudio, 615 F.2d at 157, and in ......
-
Ex Parte Shabazz
...under the due process clause in maintaining his store privileges or in being unburdened by an extra work detail."); Zamudio v. State, 615 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) ("Store and telephone privileges are not liberty interests, nor does a prisoner have a right not to have extra work du......