×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
FL Disciplinary Team member Cannot be Witness to Violation
The First District Court of Appeal in Florida reversed a circuit court's
denial of a petition for writ of mandamus, which alleged a member of the
disciplinary hearing team was not impartial because he was the sole
witness to crucial facts the team relied upon to find the petitioner
guilty of the infraction. The court held that this violated the Florida
Department of Corrections' own policy and infringed upon the prisoner's
right to an impartial fact finder. The matter was reversed and remanded
for the circuit court to determine the precise remedy to which the
petitioner was entitled. See: Bitman v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 662
So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
denial of a petition for writ of mandamus, which alleged a member of the
disciplinary hearing team was not impartial because he was the sole
witness to crucial facts the team relied upon to find the petitioner
guilty of the infraction. The court held that this violated the Florida
Department of Corrections' own policy and infringed upon the prisoner's
right to an impartial fact finder. The matter was reversed and remanded
for the circuit court to determine the precise remedy to which the
petitioner was entitled. See: Bitman v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 662
So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Bitman v. Florida Dept. of Corrections
| Year | 1995 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 662 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
SCOTT J. BITMAN v. FLORIDA DEPT. CORRECTIONS (11/21/95)
[1] COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT
[2] CASE No. 95-1549
[3] 1995.FL; 662 So. 2d 1030; 20 Fla. Law W. D 2589
[4] filed: November 21, 1995.
[5] SCOTT J. BITMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE.
[6] An appeal from the Circuit Court of Leon County. Philip J. Padovano, Judge.
[7] Scott J. Bitman, pro se, appellant.
[8] Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and David M. Frank, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
[9] Joanos, Mickle and Van Nortwick, JJ., Concur.
[10] Per Curiam.
[11] Scott J. Bitman appeals an order of the circuit court which denied his petition for writ of mandamus. That petition challenged a disciplinary proceeding wherein he was found guilty of failure to directly and promptly proceed to and from his designated area by approved method while on work release. After a hearing, he was found guilty and penalized by forfeiture of gain-time and termination from the work release program.
[12] Bitman's petition below raised numerous challenges to the disciplinary proceeding. We find that, with one exception, his claims were without merit and their denial by the trial court is affirmed. We must, however, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
[13] Appellant argues, and we agree, that his right to due process was violated when a witness, Sergeant Burnham, was also a member of the disciplinary team. This is contrary to the Department of Corrections' own Rule 33-22.003(3)(a) and infringes upon an inmate's entitlement to an impartial disciplinary fact-finder. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). The facts do not support appellee's contention that the witness in question was not disqualified because he lacked personal knowledge of the involvement of the accused. On the contrary, Sergeant Burnham was the sole witness as to certain critical facts which the disciplinary team expressly relied upon in reaching its finding of guilt.
[14] Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with directions to grant appellant's petition for writ of mandamus. The precise remedy to which appellant is entitled shall be determined by the trial court upon remand.
[15] JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
[16] Disposition
[17] Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with directions to grant appellant's petition for writ of mandamus. The precise remedy to which appellant is entitled shall be determined by the trial court upon remand.
[1] COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT
[2] CASE No. 95-1549
[3] 1995.FL; 662 So. 2d 1030; 20 Fla. Law W. D 2589
[4] filed: November 21, 1995.
[5] SCOTT J. BITMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE.
[6] An appeal from the Circuit Court of Leon County. Philip J. Padovano, Judge.
[7] Scott J. Bitman, pro se, appellant.
[8] Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and David M. Frank, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
[9] Joanos, Mickle and Van Nortwick, JJ., Concur.
[10] Per Curiam.
[11] Scott J. Bitman appeals an order of the circuit court which denied his petition for writ of mandamus. That petition challenged a disciplinary proceeding wherein he was found guilty of failure to directly and promptly proceed to and from his designated area by approved method while on work release. After a hearing, he was found guilty and penalized by forfeiture of gain-time and termination from the work release program.
[12] Bitman's petition below raised numerous challenges to the disciplinary proceeding. We find that, with one exception, his claims were without merit and their denial by the trial court is affirmed. We must, however, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
[13] Appellant argues, and we agree, that his right to due process was violated when a witness, Sergeant Burnham, was also a member of the disciplinary team. This is contrary to the Department of Corrections' own Rule 33-22.003(3)(a) and infringes upon an inmate's entitlement to an impartial disciplinary fact-finder. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). The facts do not support appellee's contention that the witness in question was not disqualified because he lacked personal knowledge of the involvement of the accused. On the contrary, Sergeant Burnham was the sole witness as to certain critical facts which the disciplinary team expressly relied upon in reaching its finding of guilt.
[14] Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with directions to grant appellant's petition for writ of mandamus. The precise remedy to which appellant is entitled shall be determined by the trial court upon remand.
[15] JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
[16] Disposition
[17] Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with directions to grant appellant's petition for writ of mandamus. The precise remedy to which appellant is entitled shall be determined by the trial court upon remand.