THOMAS A. MUNN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of mandamus where prison disciplinary action was based on barber shop rule but department later relied on different rule, violating inmate's due process rights by preventing him from presenting relevant evidence.
A prison inmate's due process rights are violated when disciplinary charges are changed after the hearing to a different rule, preventing him from presenting evidence relevant to the new charge.
[1] Prison disciplinary proceedings must provide inmates with notice and opportunity to present evidence relevant to the charges actually brought; retroactive substitution of…
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 intelligenceThomas Munn, a prison inmate, was disciplined by the Department of Corrections for shaving his head, initially charged under the institution's barber …
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 Prison Discipline cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus, by which he contested disciplinary action taken by the Department of Corrections (the department). The appellant is a prison inmate who was disciplined for shaving his head, and the disciplinary team found this to be a violation of the institution’s barber shop rule. After the appellant petitioned for mandamus the department acknowledged that the barber shop rule should not have been applied to an inmate who shaved his own head, but the department asserted that the appellant was nevertheless properly disciplined because another institutional rule precluded the appellant from shaving his head. Although the court accepted the department’s position in denying relief, in his pleadings below the appellant described evidence which he attempted to present at the disciplinary hearing and which was not allowed because it was not pertinent to a violation of the barber shop rule. Because this evidence addresses the enforcement of the rule upon which the department now relies, this change in the basis of the discipline adversely impacts the appellant’s due process rights. The appealed order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded.
WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.