Opinion
NO. 2016-CA-000056-MR
06-02-2017
MARK BUCKLER APPELLANT v. DON BOTTOM, WARDEN, NTC APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Mark Buckler, pro se Lagrange, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Allison Rene Brown Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DARREN W. PECKLER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 15-CI-00285 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, DIXON AND D. LAMBERT, JUDGES. LAMBERT, D., JUDGE: This is an appeal of a prison disciplinary action. The Boyle Circuit Court denied inmate Mark Buckler's petition for declaratory judgment and dismissed his petition challenging findings of guilt in four administrative proceedings at Northpoint Training Center. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2014, officers Mike Sims and Josh Phillips had Buckler perform a urinalysis test. Four days later, the test results revealed that Buckler had cotinine, cocaine, marijuana, and buprenorphine in his system. Following an investigation, Buckler was charged with use and/or possession of tobacco products in an unauthorized area and three counts of unauthorized use of drugs or intoxicants. A hearing was held a few weeks later, after which Buckler was found guilty on all charges. Buckler received 45 days of disciplinary segregation for using or possessing tobacco products and lost 60 days of good behavior time for each offense. Buckler eventually challenged the decision, alleging his due process rights were violated because the chain of custody of the urinalysis test specimen was incomplete. Ultimately, the circuit court dismissed his petition after finding laboratory employees signed a chain of custody form acknowledging receipt and proper handling of a sealed specimen. The circuit court also concluded that Buckler had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not raising his argument before the warden. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, "the full panoply of rights due a defendant in [a criminal prosecution] does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). "'Some evidence' of guilt is sufficient to support a prison disciplinary board's finding of guilt and satisfy due process." Stanford v. Parker, 949 S.W.2d 616, 617 (Ky. App. 1996).
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Buckler reiterates that there was a break in the chain of custody of his urine sample because certain signatures did not appear on the chain of custody form. He then presents two arguments that he never brought before the lower court. First, he argues the laboratory employees failed to wash their hands as required by state regulation. He then argues the doctrine of res judicata barred three of his convictions. For the following reasons, Buckler's arguments are meritless.
As a preliminary matter, it is well-settled that the failure of a litigant to raise an issue before the trial court precludes this court from considering it on appeal. McBrearty v. Kentucky Community and Tech. College System, 262 S.W.3d 205, 213 at n.12 (Ky. App. 2008). Therefore, we will not address Buckler's two unpreserved arguments.
Furthermore, Buckler's argument regarding the chain of custody is merely a factual issue that was already resolved by the circuit court. The circuit court determined that the urine specimen was properly accounted for while at the laboratory because the laboratory employees signed appropriate paperwork acknowledging the receipt and proper handling of the specimen. This was an appropriate finding in light of the evidence produced for the court, and it is more than enough evidence to survive any due process challenge. Accordingly, the judgment of the Boyle Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Mark Buckler, pro se
Lagrange, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Allison Rene Brown
Frankfort, Kentucky