Opinion
NO. 2015-CA-001143-MR
04-15-2016
MARK BUCKLER APPELLANT v. STEVE HANEY, WARDEN APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Mark Buckler, pro se Green River Correctional Complex Central City, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Linda M. Keeton Department of Corrections Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PHILLIP J. SHEPHERD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 15-CI-00368 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, DIXON AND STUMBO, JUDGES. STUMBO, JUDGE: Mark Buckler appeals from an Order of the Franklin Circuit Court granting the motion of Steve Haney, Warden, and Duncan Kendall, Adjustment Hearing Officer, to dismiss Buckler's prison disciplinary petition. Buckler contends that the evidence was insufficient to find that he had possessed and promoted dangerous contraband in prison, that he was improperly convicted of two offenses, and that his petition for relief was improperly dismissed. We find no error, and AFFIRM the Order on appeal.
Buckler was formerly housed as a prisoner at the Blackburn Correctional Complex in Fayette County, Kentucky. On May 25, 2014, prison staff found Buckler to be in possession of a Suboxone strip and a 0.6 ounce bag of tobacco in violation of prison disciplinary rules. An investigation ensued, whereupon a prison disciplinary hearing was conducted on May 27, 2014. After the hearing, Buckler was found guilty of 1) Possession or promoting dangerous contraband, 2) Smuggling of contraband into/out of/within the institution, and 3) Use/possession of tobacco products in an unauthorized area. As a result of the violations, Buckler received segregation and loss of good-time credit.
The record employs both the words "strip" and "pill" to describe the purported Suboxone. --------
Thereafter, Buckler filed a pro se petition for relief in Franklin Circuit Court. In support of the petition, Buckler argued that the prison Disciplinary Board relied too heavily on inadequate evidence and that the testifying officer's testimony was false. Buckler also maintained that the hearing deprived him of due process rights. In addressing the matter, Circuit Judge Phillip J. Shepherd determined that the disciplinary hearing afforded Buckler the due process rights to which he was entitled and that the evidence presented constituted "some evidence" to support the finding of guilt. Based on this determination, the court dismissed Buckler's petition. This appeal followed.
Buckler now argues that the Franklin Circuit Court erred in dismissing his petition for relief and in failing to conclude that he was not given the due process to which he was entitled. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt. Buckler argues that genuine issues of material fact remain for adjudication and maintains that no reliable evidence exists in support of the claim that he possessed dangerous contraband. He contends that poorly educated corrections officials do not possess the ability to identify dangerous substances and that no field test was conducted on the purported Suboxone strip. In his view, since the finding of guilt was based solely on the testimony of one prison official, Sergeant Joel Helmburg, and because that testimony was inadequate and not supported by a drug field test, the prison failed to produce "some evidence" sufficient to support the finding of guilt.
Inmates retain rights under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of their lawful imprisonment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). However, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal prosecution is not applicable in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Id. The inmate's interest in the procedural protections required by due process must be balanced against the legitimate institutional needs of assuring safety and control of inmates, avoiding burdensome administrative requirements and preserving the disciplinary process as a means of rehabilitation. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Wolff, supra.
In Wolff, the United States Supreme Court set forth the basic procedural due process requirements for a prison disciplinary hearing. First, the inmate must be provided with written notice of the charges against him at least 24 hours before the hearing. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. Second, there must be a written statement by the fact finder regarding the evidence relied upon and the reason for the disciplinary action. Id. Third, the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call witnesses and present other evidence in his defense when allowing him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to prison safety or correctional goals. Id. at 566.
In the matter at bar, the record indicates that these basic procedural safeguards were met. Buckler was informed about the nature of the evidence against him in advance of the proceedings, and was given the opportunity to prepare and present a defense. Additionally, he was provided with a written statement by the fact finder regarding the evidence relied upon and the reason for the disciplinary action. Finally, Buckler was allowed to call witnesses and present other evidence in his defense. These measures satisfied the basic procedural due process requirements for a prison disciplinary hearing. Wolff, supra.
The next issue for our consideration is whether the record reveals sufficient evidence in support of the disciplinary committee's finding of guilt. The standard of judicial review of a prison disciplinary committee's findings of fact is whether "some evidence" exists in support of the result. Smith v. O'Dea, 939 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Ky. App. 1997). The "some evidence" standard does not require that a committee's fact-finding be supported by compelling evidence; rather, it merely requires evidence that will support a reasonable inference of guilt. Id. at 357. Determining whether the "some evidence" standard has been satisfied does not necessitate an examination of the entire record or weighing the credibility of the evidence. Walpole, 472 U.S. at 455. The circuit court need only review the record for "some evidence" sufficient to uphold a decision of the hearing officer. Yates v. Fletcher, 120 S.W.3d 728 (Ky. App. 2003).
During a search, a correctional officer observed a pill fall from Buckler's sock. While it is true that the officer did not conduct a field test on the pill, nor send it to a laboratory for testing, photographic evidence and testimony were adduced in support of the officer's observations. We conclude that this evidence and testimony constitute "some evidence" sufficient to satisfy Yates. Arguendo, even if this evidence is not sufficient, the small amount of tobacco found in Buckler's possession - and in violation of prison rules - unquestionably meets the "some evidence" standard.
Finally, we find no merit in Buckler's contention that the facts did not support charges of both possession and smuggling. The record reveals that Blackburn is a tobacco-free institution. Buckler was found to be in possession of a small quantity of tobacco, which he admitted, and the only means by which he could have come into possession of it was via smuggling in violation of prison rules.
Given the foregoing, we conclude that the Franklin Circuit Court properly determined that Buckler received the procedural safeguards to which he was entitled and that "some evidence" was presented in support of the finding of guilt. We find no error. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Order of the Franklin Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Mark Buckler, pro se
Green River Correctional Complex
Central City, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Linda M. Keeton
Department of Corrections
Frankfort, Kentucky