AARON E. STRONG, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Habeas corpus petition challenging prison disciplinary proceeding was partially granted because the prisoner was not provided a written statement of evidence and reasons for discipline, as required by due process.
A prisoner must be given a copy of the written statement of evidence and reasons for disciplinary action to satisfy due process requirements.
[1] A prisoner must be provided a copy of the written statement of evidence and reasons for disciplinary action to satisfy due process requirements in prison disciplinary pro…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAaron Strong appealed denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding, raising eight issues regarding alleged due pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prisoners cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging violation of due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding. He has raised eight points for review. One issue has merit. Appellant asserts that, according to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), and Lightfoot v. Wainwright, 369 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1 DCA 1979), a prisoner must be given a copy of the written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action against him. We agree. We, therefore, reverse and remand with directions to the Department of Corrections to furnish a copy of the pertinent written statement to appellant. See Jerry v. Wainwright, 383 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1 DCA, opinion filed May 13, 1980).
We affirm the trial court’s ruling that appellant was not unjustly denied the right to call witnesses on his behalf. Appellant’s petition did not show specifically that he was aggrieved by the alleged denial of the opportunity to call witnesses. Cf. Piccirillo v. Wainwright, 382 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1 DCA 1980); Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F. 2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1974); and Jerry, supra.
We have considered appellant’s remaining points and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)
- Willis v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1974)
- Piccirillo v. Louie L. Wainwright, 382 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Lightfoot v. Louie L. Wainwright, 369 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Jerry v. Louie L. Wainwright, 383 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)