Opinion
NO. 2016-CA-000843-MR
08-11-2017
MARK BUCKLER APPELLANT v. DEEDRA HART, AS WARDEN OF GRCC APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Mark Buckler, pro se LaGrange, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Edward A. Baylous II Justice & Public Safety Cabinet Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE BRIAN WIGGINS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 15-CI-00317 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, JOHNSON, AND MAZE, JUDGES. MAZE, JUDGE: Mark Buckler brings this pro se appeal from an order of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court dismissing his petition for a declaration of rights. Because we hold that "some evidence" exists to support his conviction for unauthorized use of a drug or intoxicant, we affirm.
Buckler's notice of appeal lists the appellee as "DeEdra Hart, as Warden of GRCC." Hart is the current warden of Green River Correctional Complex, and is properly named as a party to this appeal. See Watkins v. Fannin, 278 S.W.3d 637 (Ky. App. 2009).
Buckler is an inmate at the Green River Correctional Complex. On June 10, 2015, Internal Affairs Lieutenant Ricky Morgan administered Buckler's urinalysis test. During that test, Buckler told Property Room Supervisor Sergeant Robert Norton that he "was dirty," meaning he would fail. Sergeant Norton contacted Lieutenant Morgan and told him what Buckler had said. On the way back to his cell, Buckler also told Lieutenant Morgan that he "was dirty" because he had taken Suboxone two days earlier.
Sergeant Norton did not give any direct statement in the record. His statements are only available through Lieutenant Morgan's and Sergeant Rickard's reports.
In Sergeant Holly Rickard's investigative report, she detailed the conversations she had with Lieutenant Morgan, Sergeant Norton and Buckler. Lieutenant Morgan recounted to her the phone call from Sergeant Norton. Sergeant Norton also told Sergeant Rickard that Buckler had admitted that he had taken Suboxone. Finally, Buckler informed Sergeant Rickard that
when he reported to the property room he was given a cup of water and placed into a holding cell for a urinalysis. Inmate Buckler stated that while in the holding cell he spoke with Sergeant Norton and requested to speak to Internal Affairs. Inmate Buckler stated that he then told Sergeant Norton he was going to pee dirty due to doing Suboxone two days prior. Inmate Buckler stated that Lieutenant Ricky Morgan then came to the property room and escorted him to SMU. Inmate Buckler stated on the way to SMU he informed Lieutenant Morgan that he had done Suboxone two days prior and would pee dirty because of it.Despite these statements, Buckler's urinalysis results did not reveal any illegal substances. Buckler was charged with "unauthorized use of drugs or intoxicants after testing positive a third time or more" pursuant to CPP 15.2(II)(C)(VI)(14).
Kentucky Correctional Policies and Procedures. --------
Adjustment Officer Angela G. Hampton found Buckler guilty, relying on Buckler's admissions to Lieutenant Morgan, Sergeant Norton and Sergeant Rickard. Buckler was sentenced to ninety days' disciplinary segregation and forfeited ninety days of nonrestorable good time. Warden Alan D. Brown denied his administrative appeal, noting Buckler's admissions to prison staff.
Buckler filed a petition for a declaration of rights in the Muhlenberg Circuit Court, arguing that the finding of guilt was not supported by "some evidence" in the record. The court entered an order dismissing the action, finding that Buckler's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
Buckler makes two arguments on appeal, with both relating to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the adjustment officer's finding. In prison disciplinary proceedings "the full panoply of rights due a [criminal] defendant . . . does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Procedural due process in this context requires only: "(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action." Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). These due process requirements are generally met "if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board. . . ." Id., 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S.Ct. at 2774.
Buckler first argues that the finding of guilt was not supported by "some evidence" of record. We disagree. The record contains admissions by Buckler, and "[a]n admission is 'some evidence' sufficient to uphold the decision of the Adjustment Committee." Yates v. Fletcher, 120 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Ky. App. 2003) (citing Smith v. O'Dea, 939 S.W.2d 353, 356-357 (Ky. App. 1997)). Nevertheless, Buckler also argues that his negative urinalysis should compel a finding that he was innocent of the charges against him under Webb v. Sharp, 223 S.W.3d 113 (Ky. 2007).
In Webb, the Kentucky Supreme Court examined the requirements for using drug test results in prison disciplinary cases. The Court held that that prison administrative officials must provide evidence establishing the reliability of a drug test before the adjustment officer may rely on that test to support a finding of guilt. Id. at 119. In Webb, the officials failed to present any such evidence establishing that foundation. But here, the adjustment officer viewed Buckler's admissions to be more convincing than the result of his drug test. We agree that Buckler's negative urinalysis test supports his assertion that he had not taken Suboxone. These results, however, are not dispositive when "some evidence" exists to support a prison disciplinary conviction. Id. at 121 ("The facts surrounding the three incidents involving marijuana, even with the field test results excluded, are sufficient to conclude there is 'some evidence' of record to support the decision reached by the hearing officers[.]"). Bucker's admissions constitute "some evidence," and his arguments therefore must fail.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court dismissing Buckler's declaratory judgment action.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Mark Buckler, pro se
LaGrange, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Edward A. Baylous II
Justice & Public Safety Cabinet
Frankfort, Kentucky