New opinion: inmate challenge of disciplinary hearing

Posted on February 4, 2010 by Michael Reitz

In re PRP of Grantham, No. 82194-1 (briefs and argument). James Grantham is an inmate at McNeil Island prison. A correctional officer was caught smuggling tobacco and marijuana to him, and Grantham was charged with violating prison rules regarding controlled substances. The evidence against him included a report of suspicious comments he was overheard making to his brother on the phone. A recording of the phone call, however, was not played at the hearing. Based on the investigative report, a hearing officer found Grantham guilty of both counts. He was sanctioned with 25 days disciplinary segregation and a loss of both 90 days good time credit and 7 days of yard privileges.

Grantham filed a personal restraint petition, arguing that the investigator acknowledged that he and his brother never explicitly discussed marijuana or tobacco. He also argued that the disciplinary hearing notice failed to specify the time and place of his conversation with his brother. The Court of Appeals dismissed Grantham’s petition.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue is the applicable standard of review for prisoners challenging disciplinary decisions. The Supreme Court, with Justice Tom Chambers writing the 7-2 majority, held that inmates challenging prison discipline need not make out a prima facie case of prejudice in order to obtain review (known as the Isadore standard). However, the Court said prisoners facing discipline are not entitled to the same range of constitutional protections afforded defendants facing criminal charges, but are only entitled to minimum due process protections. The Court stated that inmates challenging prison discipline must show that the disciplinary hearing was so arbitrary and capricious as to deny them a fundamentally fair proceeding. The Court held that Grantham has not met this standard, and dismissed his petition. Justice Gerry Alexander dissented. While he agreed with the Court’s explanation of the applicable law and standard of review, he argued that Grantham was denied a fair proceeding.

Tags: , ,

Tomorrow's opinions, Feb. 4, 2010

Posted on February 3, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court will issue decisions in at least two cases tomorrow.

Shoemake v. Ferrer, No. 81812-6 (briefs and argument). Whether damages in a legal malpractice claim should be reduced because of a contingency fee agreement, and whether attorney fees can be awarded for acts of bad faith that happen prior to the start of litigation. Andrea Shoemake was hit by a drunk driver and retained Douglas Ferrer to file a lawsuit for her, agreeing to give him a 40% contingency fee (i.e. Ferrer would get 40% of any damages). Ferrer filed the complaint, failed to appear for trial, and the case was dismissed. For eight years he told Shoemake that the case was simply backlogged in court. She eventually discovered the truth and sued for malpractice.

The trial court awarded damages to Shoemake for malpractice, but reduced the award by the 40% she would have paid to Ferrer. She also received attorney fees for the malpractice suit costs because Ferrer had acted in bad faith. The Court of Appeals reversed these two decisions, finding that Shoemake was not fully compensated if she had to pay Ferrer’s 40% plus the costs for her new attorney, and finding that attorney fees cannot be awarded for bad faith acts that occur prior to the start of litigation.

In re PRP of Grantham, No. 82194-1 (briefs and argument). Did the Department of Corrections violate James Grantham’s due process rights by refusing to give him access to evidence used against him in a prison disciplinary hearing? Grantham is an inmate at McNeil Island prison, and was charged with violating rules when a correctional officer was caught smuggling tobacco and marijuana to him. The evidence against him included a report of suspicious comments he was overheard making to his brother on the phone. Grantham was given notice of the disciplinary hearing where he was charged, but the notice didn’t contain the dates and times of his alleged violations. He also requested a copy of the phone record on which the charges were based, which was refused. He appeals for violation of due process due to this lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals denied Grantham’s petition, but the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

Tags: , ,

Today at the Court - October 13, 2009

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Jonathan Bechtle

The Court will hear four cases today, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)

In the morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hear arguments for:

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of James Grantham, No. 82194-1. This case is up from Division Two Court of Appeals, and concerns whether the Department of Corrections violated Grantham's due process rights by refusing to give him access to evidence used against him in a prison disciplinary hearing.

Grantham is an inmate at McNeil Island prison, and was charged with violating rules when a correctional officer was caught smuggling tobacco and marijuana to him. The evidence against him included a report of suspicious comments he was overheard making to his brother on the phone. Grantham was given notice of the disciplinary hearing where he was charged, but the notice didn't contain the dates and times of his alleged violations. He also requested a copy of the phone record on which the charges were based, which was refused. He appeals for violation of due process due to this lack of evidence.

The Court of Appeals denied Grantham's petition, but the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

State v. Rhone, No. 80037-5. This case is on appeal from Division Two Court of Appeals and originated in Pierce County Superior Court. It concerns whether using a peremptory challenge to remove the sole minority member of a jury is racially discriminatory on its face without any other evidence.

Rhone, a black man, was charged with robbery and drug possession. The jury selected to hear his trial contained only two black members. One was dismissed "for cause" with the agreement of both parties, but the second was excused with a peremptory (without cause) challenge by the State. Rhone challenged the panel, arguing that the peremptory challenge showed racial discrimination on its face. The trial court disagreed based on the lack of other evidence of intent to discriminate. The appeals court also disagreed with Rhone.

In the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hear arguments in:

State v. Boss and Pelts, No. 81897-5. On appeal from Division One Court of Appeals, this case originated in King County Superior Court. It concerns whether the defendant was prejudiced by two errors made by the judge in his instructions to the jury.

Child Protective Services obtained an order to take custody of Cynthia Boss's daughter due to "imminent risk of harm," but Boss refused to cooperate and moved to Texas. She was eventually found and charged with custodial interference. One element of this crime is that the other party (CPS in this case) has a legal right to the child, which CPS showed by offering the original order giving them custody of the child. The judge told the jury that CPS had a legal right to the girl, but Boss argued this was in error because the validity of the order had not been proven. The Court of Appeals agreed with Boss, but held it was a harmless error.

Boss also argues that her knowledge of CPS' legal right to custody is an element of the crime, but the judge did not include that in his instruction to the jury.

In re the Dependency of Colton Singleton, No. 81720-1. On appeal from Division Three Court of Appeals, this case originated in Ferry County Superior Court. It concerns whether there is sufficient evidence to terminate parental rights.

Amy Singleton has a son diagnosed with ADHD and other behavioral problems. She has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and is under the supervision of social workers. She continues to have substance abuse issues, although evidence was introduced that she is improving. The state filed a third party custody action and the court terminated her parental rights. She argues that the evidence is insufficient to justify the court's determination.

Tags: , , , ,