×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Prison Disciplinary Action Does Not Bar Later Criminal Proceedings
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a federal district court
in the Virgin Islands' denial of a motion to dismiss a prisoner's criminal
charges of assault in the third degree and possession of a weapon.
Wilfredo Diaz was incarcerated at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility
in St. Croix, Virgin Islands when he repeatedly stabbed another prisoner
with a knife. Diaz was found guilty of violating prison regulations for
the act and was sentenced to 55 days administrative segregation.
When the government charged him criminally for the same offense, he moved
to dismiss. The Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling that a
prison disciplinary hearing is not a prosecution for Double Jeopardy clause
purposes. Disciplinary sanctions imposed by prison authorities for
infractions of prison regulations do not bar a subsequent criminal
prosecution.
The district court's order denying the motion to dismiss was affirmed.
See: Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz, 131 Fed.Appx. 873 (3rd Cir.
2005) (unpublished).
in the Virgin Islands' denial of a motion to dismiss a prisoner's criminal
charges of assault in the third degree and possession of a weapon.
Wilfredo Diaz was incarcerated at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility
in St. Croix, Virgin Islands when he repeatedly stabbed another prisoner
with a knife. Diaz was found guilty of violating prison regulations for
the act and was sentenced to 55 days administrative segregation.
When the government charged him criminally for the same offense, he moved
to dismiss. The Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling that a
prison disciplinary hearing is not a prosecution for Double Jeopardy clause
purposes. Disciplinary sanctions imposed by prison authorities for
infractions of prison regulations do not bar a subsequent criminal
prosecution.
The district court's order denying the motion to dismiss was affirmed.
See: Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz, 131 Fed.Appx. 873 (3rd Cir.
2005) (unpublished).
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
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 131 Fed.Appx. 873 (3rd Cir. 2005) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[U] Government of the Virgin Islands v. Diaz, 131 Fed.Appx. 873 (3d Cir. 05/24/2005)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[2] No. 04-4773
[3] 131 Fed.Appx. 873, 2005
[4] May 24, 2005
[5] GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
WILFREDO DIAZ, APPELLANT.
[6] On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D.C. No. 03-cr-00007) District Judge: The Honorable Raymond L. Finch District Judge: The Honorable Thomas K. Moore Territorial Judge: Ive A. Swan
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nygaard, Circuit Judge
[8] NOT PRECEDENTIAL
[9] Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 19, 2005
[10] Before: NYGAARD, RENDELL, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
[11] OPINION OF THE COURT
[12] Wilfredo Diaz appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him. We will affirm.
[13] While Diaz was incarcerated at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, prison officials charged him with violating prison regulations by repeatedly stabbing another inmate with a knife. The Bureau of Corrections Disciplinary Committee held a hearing after which it found Diaz guilty of violating prison regulations and placed him in administrative segregation for fifty-five days. For the stabbing, the Government then charged Diaz with assault in the third degree and with possession of a dangerous weapon. Diaz filed a motion to dismiss, which the Territorial Court denied. He went to trial and was found guilty on both counts.
[14] Diaz argues that because he had already been tried and sanctioned by prison officials for the stabbing, the Government's attempt to prosecute him violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. His argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143 (3d Cir. 1993). In Newby, we held that "a prison disciplinary hearing is not a prosecution for Double Jeopardy Clause purposes. Disciplinary sanctions imposed by prison authorities for infractions of prison regulations do not bar a subsequent criminal prosecution." Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). Other Courts of Appeal to address the issue are in agreement. See United States v. Galan, 82 F.3d 639, 640 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1989); Kerns v. Paratt, 672 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1982). Thus, Diaz's argument fails as a matter of law.
[15] Accordingly, we affirm the Territorial Court's order denying the motion to dismiss.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[2] No. 04-4773
[3] 131 Fed.Appx. 873, 2005
[4] May 24, 2005
[5] GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
WILFREDO DIAZ, APPELLANT.
[6] On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D.C. No. 03-cr-00007) District Judge: The Honorable Raymond L. Finch District Judge: The Honorable Thomas K. Moore Territorial Judge: Ive A. Swan
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nygaard, Circuit Judge
[8] NOT PRECEDENTIAL
[9] Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 19, 2005
[10] Before: NYGAARD, RENDELL, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
[11] OPINION OF THE COURT
[12] Wilfredo Diaz appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him. We will affirm.
[13] While Diaz was incarcerated at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, prison officials charged him with violating prison regulations by repeatedly stabbing another inmate with a knife. The Bureau of Corrections Disciplinary Committee held a hearing after which it found Diaz guilty of violating prison regulations and placed him in administrative segregation for fifty-five days. For the stabbing, the Government then charged Diaz with assault in the third degree and with possession of a dangerous weapon. Diaz filed a motion to dismiss, which the Territorial Court denied. He went to trial and was found guilty on both counts.
[14] Diaz argues that because he had already been tried and sanctioned by prison officials for the stabbing, the Government's attempt to prosecute him violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. His argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143 (3d Cir. 1993). In Newby, we held that "a prison disciplinary hearing is not a prosecution for Double Jeopardy Clause purposes. Disciplinary sanctions imposed by prison authorities for infractions of prison regulations do not bar a subsequent criminal prosecution." Id. at 1144 (citation omitted). Other Courts of Appeal to address the issue are in agreement. See United States v. Galan, 82 F.3d 639, 640 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1989); Kerns v. Paratt, 672 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1982). Thus, Diaz's argument fails as a matter of law.
[15] Accordingly, we affirm the Territorial Court's order denying the motion to dismiss.