Quantrey Bryant v. Alabama Department of Corrections

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/01/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-09-1375 Quantrey Bryant v. Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s Appeal WELCH, from E l m o r e C i r c u i t (CV-10-36) Court Judge. Quantrey Bryant appeals from the dismissal ofh i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s , w h e r e i n he a l l e g e d t h a t he was d e n i e d due p r o c e s s i n a p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y p r o c e e d i n g . He was found guilty i n the d i s c i p l i n a r y proceeding of CR-09-1375 violating Rule (possession of No. 64, Administrative Regulation contraband). Bryant was No. sanctioned with d a y s ' d i s c i p l i n a r y s e g r e g a t i o n and l o s s o f p r i v i l e g e s . l o s t one y e a r and s e v e n months g o o d - t i m e In his p e t i t i o n , process in according the prison t o him, the s o l e l y on h e a r s a y . failed Bryant hearing finding Bryant denied proceeding officer's due because, d e c i s i o n was based T h u s , he c l a i m e d , t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t him t o meet t h e " s o m e - e v i d e n c e " s t a n d a r d officer's 45 credit. c o n t e n d e d t h a t he was disciplinary 403 was arbitrary and and capricious. the hearing The Alabama D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s ("DOC") f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , a r g u i n g t h a t the p e t i t i o n relief c o u l d be afforded due dismiss granted process. several disciplinary report. the The f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h and that Bryant The DOC documents, r e p o r t and had, attached including i n fact, been to i t s motion a copy of to the a copy of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n c i d e n t c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e DOC's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s petition. On denied Wolff appeal, the v. Bryant restates minimum d u e - p r o c e s s McDonnell, 418 U.S. his requirements 539 2 argument (1974), that he was established in when t h e hearing CR-09-1375 o f f i c e r made a d e c i s i o n b a s e d s o l e l y on h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y . first note denial that the loss of a l i b e r t y of good-time interest that requirements e s t a b l i s h e d i n Wolff. So. 2 d 182 ( A l a . C r i m . App. credit constitutes a t r i g g e r s the due-process S u m m e r f o r d v. S t a t e , 1985). " I n W o l f f [ v . M c D o n n e l l ] , 418 U.S. [539] a t 5 4 1 ¬ 42, 94 S . C t . 2963 [(1974)], the United States Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a prisoner in a disciplinary proceeding where a liberty interest i s i m p l i c a t e d must be a f f o r d e d a d v a n c e (no l e s s t h a n 24 h o u r s ) n o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e against him; the r i g h t t o be p r e s e n t at the disciplinary hearing; the right to present d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e on h i s b e h a l f ; a q u a l i f i e d right t o have a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r e s e n t on h i s b e h a l f ; a q u a l i f i e d r i g h t t o c a l l w i t n e s s e s ; and a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e r e l i e d on a n d t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y body. See Brown v. S t a t e , 592 So. 2d 621, 623 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; and Zamudio v. S t a t e , 615 So. 2d 156, 157 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . I n Thompson v. S t a t e , 504 So. 2d 747, 748 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , t h i s C o u r t r e l y i n g on Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n , W a l p o l e v. H i l l , 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed. 2d 356 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , s t a t e d t h a t i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y due p r o c e s s , t h e r e must be 'some e v i d e n c e ' t o s u p p o r t t h e d e c i s i o n by t h e p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y board t h a t the inmate i s g u i l t y of the alleged violation. The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i s t h e n w h e t h e r t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t c o u l d s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d by t h e h e a r i n g officer. See Thompson, 504 So. 2d a t 748; s e e a l s o H e i d e l b u r g v. S t a t e , 522 So. 2d 337, 339 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . "'Due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f a s t a t e d i s c i p l i n a r y board or a h e a r i n g 3 We 466 CR-09-1375 officer not be made arbitrarily or capriciously, b u t be based upon some evidence. Superintendent, Massachusetts C o r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n , W a l p o l e v. H i l l , 472 U.S. 445, 105 S . C t . 2768, 86 L . E d . 2d 356 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; H e i d e l b u r g v. S t a t e [ , 522 So. 2d 337, 339 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988)]. Hearsay t e s t i m o n y may be a d m i s s i b l e i n p r i s o n d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g s ; however, i t may n o t a l o n e be s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of g u i l t . P e a r s a l l v. S t a t e , 564 So. 2d 1014 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) , r e v ' d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 564 So. 2d 1017 (Ala. 1990). See a l s o Ex p a r t e F l o y d , 457 So. 2d 961 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . Situations arise where f i n d i n g s o f g u i l t b a s e d e n t i r e l y on h e a r s a y a r e p r o p e r and n e c e s s a r y ; however i n t h o s e c a s e s c e r t a i n m e a s u r e s must be taken t o ensure minimum due process. P e a r s a l l v. S t a t e . ' " B r i d g e s v. S t a t e , 636 So. 2d 696, 697 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . See a l s o O l i v e r v. S t a t e , 770 So. 2d 1116, 1117-18 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; and Gowers v. S t a t e , 766 So. 2d 986 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . " B y e r s v. S t a t e , 856 So. 2d 954, 956-57 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003). I n t h i s c a s e , t h e s o l e e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h t h e f i n d i n g o f g u i l t was b a s e d was t h e h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y o f C a p t a i n G w e n d o l y n Tarrance James r e g a r d i n g what Liverett. The Tarrance had been record reflects t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g as that told by Captain Officer Tarrance follows: "On December 14, 2009, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6:26 a.m.[,] O f f i c e r James L i v e r e t t r e p o r t e d t o [me] t h a t he d i s c o v e r e d one (1) Sony E r i c s s o n f l i p c e l l phone, and f o u r (4) N o k i a c e l l p h o n e s , b l a c k and s i l v e r i n 4 CR-09-1375 c o l o r , and one (1) MP3 P l a y e r i n s i d e i n [ B r y a n t ' s ] a s s i g n e d l o c k e r box C2 (C. a bag 85A." located 27.) The d i s c i p l i n a r y r e p o r t r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r used the testimony as his finding of fact. There is no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e p o r t t h a t any o t h e r w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d a t the disciplinary officer who contraband which was hearing. actually There i s no indication t e s t i f i e d at the h e a r i n g . any d i s c o v e r y of i n v o l v e d i n the that the In a w r i t t e n statement, i s r e f e r e n c e d i n the d i s c i p l i n a r y r e p o r t , Bryant p o s s e s s i n g any We cannot denied contraband. say the that, evidence in record, Tarrance constitutes taking into the hearsay testimony evidence to i n d i c a t e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y , n o r was any reason given DOC process. for failing knowledge of the The due to There call was no a witness who had i n i t s b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t t h e was b a s e d upon t h e i n c i d e n t r e p o r t , w h i c h in whose officer to direct incident. argues the as Captain the of so of satisfy requirements "some e v i d e n c e " c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l the contraband was found, and testimony i n d i c a t e d where that the hearing c o u l d have b a s e d h i s d e c i s i o n on t h e c o n t e n t s o f 5 and the CR-09-1375 i n c i d e n t r e p o r t , w h i c h t h e DOC c l a i m s f a l l s u n d e r R u l e 8 0 3 ( 8 ) , Ala. R. E v i d . , t h e p u b l i c - r e c o r d s a n d r e p o r t s e x c e p t i o n t o t h e hearsay r u l e . I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t he h a d c o n s i d e r e d t h e i n c i d e n t r e p o r t when making his decision. investigating admissible (Ala. Further, ordinarily, officers into are evidence. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . the i n c i d e n t deemed the r e p o r t s of hearsay James v. S t a t e , and are 723 So. 2d 776 Even assuming, w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , report f e l l within not that an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e , the e x c e p t i o n permits the admission of s p e c i f i e d hearsay e v i d e n c e ; i t does n o t p r o v e t h a t s u c h e v i d e n c e i s n o t h e a r s a y . "Rule 802 e x p r e s s l y exempts from exclusion those hearsay s t a t e m e n t s whose a d m i s s i b i l i t y i s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y l a w . " R u l e 802 A l a . R. E v i d . , A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e ' s n o t e s . (Emphasis added.) For finding the reasons stated above, we o f g u i l t by t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r conclude that the i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o meet d u e - p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s and i s , therefore, The trial arbitrary court and c a p r i c i o u s . dismissing the habeas 6 judgment corpus of the petition i s , CR-09-1375 therefore, for reversed, a n d t h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o t h a t further proceedings consistent with this court opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , a n d M a i n , 7 J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.