From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watts v. Lane

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
Aug 16, 2019
NO. 2018-CA-001012-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2019)

Opinion

NO. 2018-CA-001012-MR

08-16-2019

BLAKE WATTS APPELLANT v. TIM LANE, WARDEN APPELLEE

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Blake Watts, pro se Burgin, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Brenn O. Combs Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet Office of Legal Services Frankfort, Kentucky


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 17-CI-01136 OPINION
AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: JONES, KRAMER, AND MAZE, JUDGES. MAZE, JUDGE: Blake Watts, an inmate at Northpoint Training Center, appeals the opinion and order of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissing his petition for a declaration of rights. Watts alleged his due process rights were violated in two separate prison disciplinary proceedings. We hold that Watts received the required due process. Hence, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 29, 2017, Watts was an inmate at Keeton Corrections, Inc. ("Keeton"), a halfway house in Paducah, Kentucky, when a staff member, Greg Champy, observed that Watts appeared intoxicated. Champy instructed Watts to empty his pockets, which contained rolling paper and a small plastic baggie. Champy then took Watts to Adams Wofford, a Probation and Parole Officer, who performed a pat-down search and discovered $71.00 cash on Watts's person. Keeton's written rules prohibited inmates from possessing more than $10.00 cash inside the halfway house. Under CPP 15.2, possessing $20.00 cash or more in excess of the authorized amount is considered a Category VI (major violation) offense.

Kentucky Department of Corrections Policy and Procedures.

Watts was then transported to the McCracken County Jail by Officer Wofford and Dana Davie, an officer with the Paducah Police Department. Upon arrival, Officer Davie warned Watt that he could be charged with a crime if he had contraband hidden in his possession. Watt was searched, and a cell phone and a bag labeled "Platinum Diablo," believed to be synthetic marijuana, were discovered. Marijuana and cell phones are both considered dangerous contraband under KRS 520.010(3), possession of which is considered a Category VI (major violation) offense under CPP 15.2.

Kentucky Revised Statutes.

Watts was charged with having $20.00 or more cash in excess of what he was permitted to possess at the halfway house and for promoting dangerous contraband for what was found on him at the McCracken County Jail. Each alleged disciplinary infraction was independently investigated and subject to a separate hearing. The incident at the halfway house was investigated by Lts. Lori Cordes and Jason Hubbard, who interviewed Watts, Champy, and Officer Wofford. Watts alleged he reported to his case worker that he had received $71.00 cash, who instructed Watts to spend the excess money or mail it out. Watts claimed he planned to follow this instruction but was unable to do so before being searched. Champy reported that he only found the rolling paper and baggie on Watts, not the cash. However, Officer Wofford explained that he performed the pat-down search and discovered $71.00 cash on Watts.

The incident at the jail was also investigated by Lt. Cordes. She questioned Watts and he denied possessing marijuana or a cell phone. Watts also alleged that he was transported to the jail with three other people and the contraband was discovered in the holding area. However, Officer Davie reported that Watt told her after receiving the contraband warning that he might have "spice" (synthetic marijuana) on him and that the cell phone and Platinum Diablo were discovered in Watts's "crotch area."

At the disciplinary hearing for the incident at the halfway house, the assigned adjustment officer ("AO") found Champy, who reported the incident, credible. Based on Champy's observation and Lts. Cordes and Hubbard's investigation, the AO concluded Watts was guilty of possessing money, $20.00 or more in excess. The resulting penalty was a forfeiture of sixty days' good-time credit.

At the disciplinary hearing for the incident at the jail, Watts denied saying he possessed spice and asserted he never possessed the cell phone or Platinum Diablo. Watts's legal aid also alleged due process was not in order because there was not a chain of custody or lab report on the substance labeled Platinum Diablo. The AO found Officer Davie credible and found Watts guilty of promoting dangerous contraband. The resulting penalty was forfeiture of 180 days' good time-credit and thirty days in restrictive housing. Watts appealed both disciplinary actions to the warden, appellee Tim Lane, who affirmed Watts's disciplinary violations.

Watts then filed a petition for declaratory judgment in Franklin Circuit Court. Watts alleged his due process rights were violated at both disciplinary hearings because the AO refused to consider exculpatory evidence and that the evidence presented at each hearing was insufficient to establish guilt. Lane moved to dismiss, arguing that Watts failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the record showed that Watts's disciplinary hearings provided the required due process and the evidence considered by the AO was sufficient to find guilt. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Watts's petition. This appeal follows.

The circuit court initially granted Lane's motion to dismiss on the ground that Watts failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Eight days later, the circuit court entered a new opinion and order finding that Watts failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Lane does not argue on appeal that Watts failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Hence, this opinion addresses only whether the circuit erred by finding Watts failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. --------

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Inmates may file petitions for declaratory judgment to seek review of their disputes with the Department of Corrections when habeas corpus proceedings are inappropriate. Smith v. O'Dea, 939 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Ky. App. 1997). Although original actions, inmate petitions are similar to appeals because they invoke the circuit court's authority to act as a court of review. Id. Therefore, such a petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted "unless it appears the pleading party would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved." Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2010). "[T]he pleadings should be liberally construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, all allegations being taken as true." Id. Because a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is a question of law, an appellate court reviews the issue de novo. Id.

ANALYSIS

"Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). When good time credit is at stake, due process requires only that the inmate be provided the following:

(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 his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.
Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Less evidence is needed than necessary to support a criminal conviction. Due process is satisfied if "the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record." Id. "Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Id. at 455-56, 105 S.Ct. at 2774.

I. Possessing Money, $20.00 or More in Excess

Watts argues his first disciplinary hearing did not comply with due process because the AO failed to consider exculpatory evidence. Specifically, evidence that Keeton permitted residents to possess up to $50.00 cash so long as $10.00 or less was taken on work assignments. However, Watts does not allege that he attempted to introduce any evidence which the AO refused to consider. The disciplinary report in the record, which Watts signed, states that Watts did not request any witnesses. Moreover, Keeton's General House Rules, attached to Watts's petition for declaratory judgment, state that "Residents are not to bring property, food, or money in from outside assignments, (school, church, and community service). Residents are authorized to take a maximum of $10.00 with them on these assignments." Thus, the facts alleged in Watts' petition, assumed true, failed to establish that he attempted to introduce potentially exculpatory evidence that the AO wrongfully refused to consider. The AO was not required to seek out exculpatory evidence Watt did not attempt to introduce. Therefore, the circuit court correctly found that the disciplinary hearing for the charge of possessing money, $20.00 or more in excess complied with due process.

II. Promoting Dangerous Contraband

Watts contends the evidence that he was transported to the jail with other inmates made it necessary to establish a chain of custody for the cell phone and the Platinum Diablo for there to be sufficient evidence he possessed this contraband. Watts is correct that this court has previously held that a chain of custody may be necessary in certain instances to ensure that the evidence used to punish an inmate is reliable. Byerly v. Ashley, 825 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Ky. App. 1991). Thus, certain laboratory or field tests cannot, on their own, prove an infraction unless there is a foundation establishing their chain of custody and reliability. Id. However, an inmate may be found to have possessed contraband if the AO considered other facts surrounding the incident that provide some evidence to support the decision of the disciplinary board. Webb v. Sharp, 223 S.W.3d 113, 120 (Ky. 2007). In this case, a drug test was not relied on to establish Watts's guilt. Officer Davie reported that Watts told her that he might have spice on his person and that the cell phone and Platinum Diablo were discovered in his "crotch area." Possessing either marijuana or a cell phone provided grounds to find guilt for promoting dangerous contraband. Thus, the facts surrounding Watts's booking in the jail and considered by the AO provided some evidence to support the finding that Watts was guilty of promoting dangerous contraband.

CONCLUSION

The opinion and order of the Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Blake Watts, pro se
Burgin, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Brenn O. Combs
Kentucky Justice & Public Safety
Cabinet
Office of Legal Services
Frankfort, Kentucky


Summaries of

Watts v. Lane

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
Aug 16, 2019
NO. 2018-CA-001012-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2019)
Case details for

Watts v. Lane

Case Details

Full title:BLAKE WATTS APPELLANT v. TIM LANE, WARDEN APPELLEE

Court:Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 16, 2019

Citations

NO. 2018-CA-001012-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2019)