ADRIAN SWAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT ETC., 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.
The court held that the failure to call all requested witnesses and provide all reports did not deny the petitioner due process of law.
[1] A prisoner's due process rights are not violated by the failure to call all requested witnesses at a disciplinary hearing if the prisoner was furnished with the charges a…
[2] Disclosure of investigative and incident reports in prison disciplinary proceedings may be limited to protect witnesses from reprisal.
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 intelligencePetitioner, an inmate, was found guilty of involvement in a disturbance and disciplined. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging procedural 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 Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the trial court denying petition for writ of habeas corpus finding that petitioner “has failed to establish that the disciplinary proceedings taken against him were such as to deny him due process of law.”
Petitioner, appellant herein, forfeited 200 days of gain time and was sentenced to disciplinary confinement for a period not to exceed 90 days, as a result of being found guilty of involvement in a disturbance at Raiford. The charges against appellant were unarmed assault, participating in a disturbance and disorderly conduct.
The record establishes that appellant was furnished with a copy of the disciplinary report containing the charges against him and that a disciplinary hearing, at which petitioner was allowed to call a witness, was duly held. Appellant was identified by a number of eyewitnesses as the inmate who struck Officer Morris. Appellant has not denied the assault, but contends that his procedural rights were violated by appel-lee’s failure to call all of the witnesses he requested and failure to furnish copies of the report of investigation or incident reports as well as written reports of the evidence against him.
On consideration of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, we find that respondent’s failure to call all witnesses requested does not violate petitioner’s basic rights1 or the Florida Administrative Code.2 Appellant was furnished with a copy of the charges against him in advance of the hearing and was informed of the information contained in the reports. In view of the possible risk of reprisal against inmates and officers who are witnesses to the disturbance, further disclosure was not required. Finally, we note that appellant’s attack on the impartiality of the panel is patently devoid of merit.
Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and SMITH and BOOTH, JJ., concur. . Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566-569, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
. Fla.Admin.Code § 33-3.08(13)(i).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Piccirillo v. Louie L. Wainwright, 382 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…es will not be called. Unavailable witnesses may submit written statements. Witnesses will not be called if doing so would create a risk or reprisal or would undermine authority. The inmate witness must be willing to testify . Swarez v. Wainwright, 363 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978): “Appellant has not denied the assault, but contends that his procedural rights were violated by appellee’s failure to call all of the witnesses he requested and the failure to furnish copies of the report of investigation or in…
-
Brown v. Sorensen, 386 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of Swarez v. Wainwright, 363 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). LETTS, C. J., BERANEK, J., and WES-SEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Brown v. State, 375 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ns permitted prisoners to seek habe-as corpus relief when they raised constitutional issues, without considering whether they could have sought administrative review. Lightfoot v. Wainwright, 369 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Swarez v. Wainwright, 363 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Bagley v. Brierton, 362 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Hanks v. Wainwright, 360 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).2 Appellant has a constitutional right to collateral relief which cannot be foreclosed by failure to seek direct j…
Authorities Cited
- Wolff v. McDONNELL, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974)