JOHN M. ESPOSITO, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY, FLORIDA 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.
Esposito, a prison inmate, sought a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court's denial of his mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary sanction for attempting to introduce contraband. The court held that the disciplinary proceeding violated due process under Wolff v. McDonnell because the Department of Corrections denied his request for strip search inventory logs that were material to his defense.
The court held that the inmate's due process rights were violated because Wolff v. McDonnell expressly protects an inmate's right to present documentary evidence in a disciplinary proceeding. The Department's denial of the inventory logs denied the inmate a fair opportunity to defend himself.
[1] A prisoner's due process rights in a disciplinary proceeding include the right to present documentary evidence.
[2] Denial of a prisoner's request for documentary evidence in a disciplinary proceeding can constitute a denial of due process.
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“The right to present documentary evidence was expressly identified in Wolff as one of the rights of an inmate in a disciplinary proceeding.”
Establishes the fundamental due process protection violated in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEsposito was found guilty after a disciplinary hearing of attempting to conspire with his wife to introduce a wristwatch into a prison facility. The f…
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.
John M. Esposito petitions this court for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of an order of the circuit court which denied his petition for writ of mandamus. That petition challenged the imposition of a disciplinary sanction imposed against him by the Department of Corrections. Petitioner was found guilty after a hearing of attempting to conspire with his wife to introduce contraband, a wrist watch, into a prison facility. The disciplinary report was based upon monitored phone calls and was supported by the fact that Esposito was later found to be wearing a watch such as the one described in those calls.
Petitioner argues that the person who listened to the phone calls misunderstood his conversations with his wife and that logs which reflected the results of strip searches before and after his wife’s visits following those calls would show that the watch was already in his possession before she visited.
Petitioner argues that 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 in a disciplinary proceeding. By denying relief, the circuit court allowed to stand an action of the Department which was the result of a proceeding where due process was denied. Issuance of the writ of certiorari is therefore appropriate. White v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We therefore GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, QUASH the order of the circuit court, and REMAND with instructions to issue the writ of mandamus.
PETITION GRANTED.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Deason, 770 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Nickolas J. White v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Turnberry Assocs., Inc. v. Cardinal Pierre & The Fla. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Dep't OF Corr. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Kearney v. Moore, 884 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Gill v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)