MARVIN C. GILL, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
Marvin Gill, a prison inmate, challenged a disciplinary sanction imposed by the Department of Corrections through a writ of mandamus. The appellate court found that the disciplinary report failed to comply with required procedural rules regarding notice of charges and therefore granted Gill's petition for certiorari, requiring the circuit court to grant his mandamus petition.
The court held that the disciplinary report failed to comply with the procedural requirement to provide adequate description of the violation including date, time, and place, thereby violating due process requirements for advance notice of charges. The court found this defect was sufficient to grant relief without reaching the merits of whether the evidence actually established a violation.
[1] A disciplinary report in an inmate disciplinary proceeding must describe the violation, including the date, time, and place, and the specific rules violated.
[2] Due process in an inmate discipline proceeding requires advance notice of the charge.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Due process in an inmate discipline proceeding requires, among other things, advance notice of the charge.”
Establishes the constitutional basis for requiring adequate notice in disciplinary proceedings, citing Wolff v. McDonnell
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA disciplinary report charged Gill with violating prison regulations after an inspector discovered minutes of a corporate stockholder meeting allegedl…
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marvin C. Gill petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County which denied his petition for writ of mandamus. In the mandamus petition, he raised several challenges to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction by the Department of Corrections against him after a hearing. We have jurisdiction in accordance with Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998). We conclude that one of his challenges has merit and that manda mus should have been granted by the circuit court.
A disciplinary report was served on Gill which charged him with violating code 0062, “disobey regulations.” The text of the report described a document discovered by an inspector containing minutes of a corporate stockholder meeting supposedly conducted by Gill, the corporation’s majority stockholder, at the correctional institution. After the hearing, the disciplinary team convicted Gill of violating FAC Rule 33-602.205(9), which prohibits an inmate from conducting business through the use of the telephone or other avenue of communication during his or her incarceration.
Gill contends, and we agree, that the disciplinary report served on him did not comply with Rule 33-601.304(2)(a) and (b), which requires a description of the violation, including date, time, and place, and the specific rules violated. In another context, we granted relief where a disciplinary report did not conform to Rule 33-601.304(2)(e), relating to the identification of staff witnesses with knowledge of the incident. See Plymel v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Due process in an inmate discipline proceeding requires, among other things, advance notice of the charge. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
Further, there may be a question whether the mere existence of the minutes, without evidence that they were the result of communication with others or that they were later transmitted to others, establishes a violation of Rule 33-601.205(9). We find it unnecessary to reach this issue, however, in light of our granting of relief on the issue of inadequate notice of the charges. We are also unpersuaded by the department’s argument that Gill was not prejudiced by the defects in the disciplinary report. The disputes that arose regarding Gill’s requested witnesses for the hearing, which we also do not address on the merits because of our disposition, demonstrate that prejudice did occur. In light of the above, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand to the circuit court with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI GRANTED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Esposito v. McDONOUGH, 971 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…his requests for copies of those inventories were ignored, resulting in violations of the Department’s own rules and his right to due process under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). We agree. See Gill v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Plymel v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Dep’t of Corr. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The right to present documentary evidence was expressly identified in Wolff as one of the rights of an inmate i…
Authorities Cited
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Deason, 770 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)