Opinion
No. 2009 CA 0103.
May 8, 2009.
ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NO. 559,208 HONORABLE WILLIAM A. MORVANT, JUDGE PRESIDING.
Roman Ford, C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center, DeQuincy, Louisiana, Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person.
Debra A. Rutledge, Deputy General Counsel, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Richard Stalder, Secretary of Louisiana Department of Public, Safety and Corrections.
BEFORE: PARRO, McCLENDON, AND WELCH, JJ.
Roman Ford, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, appeals the judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review of the final agency decision in a disciplinary matter. We affirm the judgment in accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal Rule 2-16.2A(5), (6), and (8).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter. Having done so, we find no error in the judgment of the district court and adopt as our own the analysis set forth in the Commissioner's Recommendation, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Further, to the extent that appellant's "Motion to Amend" filed on February 10, 2009, might be considered a request for counsel, said motion is denied. Therefore, we affirm the district court judgment and assess all costs of this appeal to Roman Ford.
MOTION DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATION
The petitioner filed this request for relief pursuant to R.S. 15:1177 seeking judicial review of the final agency decision rendered under Disciplinary Board Appeal No. PCC-2007-110. According to the disciplinary record filed in this matter, the petitioner pled guilty to violations of Rule #3-Defiance and Rule #5-Aggravated Disobedience. The disciplinary board imposed penalties of a loss of 90 days good time and 10 days Isolation on each of the petitioner rule violations. The petitioner contends he did not enter a guilty plea, contends the derogatory comment was made about an officer at another institution and was not allowed to present a defense at his disciplinary hearing because the board found he has entered a guilty plea. The defendants contend that following a guilty plea an inmate may only challenge his penalty in a disciplinary appeal.
This Commissioner reviewed the audio recording of the disciplinary hearing conducted in this matter. The petitioner stated at the hearing that he pled guilty to "talking" to another inmate about a corrections officer and making the derogatory statement at issue, but alleged he was talking about an officer at another institution. The disciplinary board found the petitioner acknowledged he made the derogatory statement about a corrections officer and accepted the petitioner's guilty plea. After deliberations by the disciplinary board, the petitioner and his inmate counsel, did not object to the finding he entered his pleas prior to the time the penalties were imposed. The audio recording also contains a recording of an unrelated disciplinary matter involving an unrelated incident.
This Commissioner finds the petitioner did enter a guilty plea with a mitigating statement. If the petitioner thought the board misunderstood his intent to enter a guilty plea, he should have raised that issue with the disciplinary board. The petitioner's excuse for his comment was not accepted by the board and the petitioner acknowledged on the record he cursed an employee as alleged. It should be noted the petitioner's Aggravated Disobedience charge was based on the fact that ho was yelling on the tier after being told to keep it down. A review of the record does indicate the petitioner entered a plea as reflected by the record. Although the two penalties in this matter might be viewed as somewhat harsh for the particular incident, the disciplinary board cannot be said to have exceed the discretion granted the board when imposing disciplinary penalties in this matter. The petitioner's disciplinary convictions should not be disturbed on appeal by this Court.
It is the recommendation of this Commissioner that the final agency decision rendered in this matter be affirmed and the instant request for judicial review be dismissed with prejudice, at the petitioner's cost.
Respectfully recommended this 30 day of June, 2008