IN RE OF DAVIS

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 508616.

Attorney(S)

Claude E. Davis Jr., Dannemora, petitioner pro se. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Judges

Karen K. Peters
Robert S. Rose
William E. McCarthy
John C. Egan

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner Claude E. Davis Jr. was charged with violating prison correspondence procedures and providing unauthorized legal assistance after three letters he authored—labeled as legal mail—were found in a mail bag outside the designated law library area. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. His administrative appeal was unsuccessful, leading him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the Commissioner of Correctional Services' determination.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that petitioner violated correspondence procedures and provided unauthorized legal assistance.
Whether petitioner was authorized to provide legal assistance to other inmates, and if that issue was preserved for judicial review.
Whether the Hearing Officer erred in failing to interview the author of the misbehavior report and in not obtaining certain documentary evidence.
Whether petitioner complied with the correspondence policy by leaving letters in an unsecured location in the law library, and the impact of alleged tampering with the letters.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioner claimed he was authorized to provide legal assistance to other inmates.
He contended the Hearing Officer erred by not interviewing the author of the misbehavior report and failing to obtain relevant documentary evidence.
Petitioner asserted compliance with the correspondence policy by placing the letters in an appropriate location within the law library, arguing that someone else removed and misplaced them.

Respondent’s Arguments

Respondent maintained that the letters were found in violation of the policy requiring legal mail to be sent from the law library.
Respondent distinguished petitioner’s legal assistance from that provided by law library clerks, characterizing it as unauthorized.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Matter of Johnson v Goord, 42 AD3d 626, 627	Substantial evidence standard for disciplinary determinations.	Used to confirm that the misbehavior report and petitioner’s admission provided substantial evidence supporting guilt.
Matter of Faraldo v Senkowski, 275 AD2d 833	Standard for reviewing prison disciplinary findings.	Supported the court’s confirmation of the disciplinary determination.
Matter of Madison v Cunningham, 67 AD3d 1141, 1142	Preservation of issues for appellate review.	Applied to reject petitioner’s claim regarding authorization to provide legal assistance as unpreserved.
Matter of Edwards v Leclaire, 71 AD3d 1199	Deference to Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations.	Supported the court’s view that the credibility question about letter placement was for the Hearing Officer to resolve.
Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1085, 1086	Credibility assessments in disciplinary proceedings.	Reinforced the court’s deference to the Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the misbehavior report and petitioner’s testimony, noting petitioner admitted authorship of the letters and the correspondence involved legal assistance not authorized under prison policy. The misbehavior report detailed that the letters were labeled as legal mail but were found in a mail bag outside the law library, violating the correspondence procedures. The court found this constituted substantial evidence supporting the disciplinary determination.

Petitioner’s claim of authorization to provide legal assistance was deemed unpreserved because it was not raised at the disciplinary hearing. Similarly, claims regarding the Hearing Officer’s failure to interview the misbehavior report’s author and to obtain certain documentary evidence were also unpreserved. The court recognized petitioner’s assertion that he complied with the correspondence policy by leaving the letters in an appropriate but unsecured location raised a credibility issue. This credibility determination was properly left to the Hearing Officer, whose findings the court deferred to.

Holding and Implications

The court confirmed the determination of guilt and dismissed the petition without costs.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the disciplinary finding against petitioner Claude E. Davis Jr. No new legal precedent was established; the court applied established standards of substantial evidence and procedural preservation to affirm the disciplinary ruling.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of CLAUDE E. DAVIS JR., Petitioner, v. NORMAN R. BEZIO, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

After three letters written by petitioner addressed to other inmates and labeled as legal mail were found in a mail bag that was not located inside the prison's law library, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the correspondence procedures and providing unauthorized legal assistance. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Petitioner was unsuccessful on his administrative appeal and thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

The misbehavior report contained detailed information regarding the correspondence, including the facts that it was labeled as legal mail and was found in a "B2 mail bag" in violation of the policy that legal mail must be sent from the law library. The report also indicates that the letters involved legal work prepared by petitioner on behalf of other inmates and was not the type of legal assistance provided by law library clerks. At the disciplinary hearing, in response to the Hearing Officer's questioning, petitioner admitted that he was the author of the correspondence. The fact that the letters constituted legal assistance was not disputed. Accordingly, we find that the information in the misbehavior report and petitioner's testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Johnson v Goord, 42 AD3d 626, 627; Matter of Faraldo v Senkowski, 275 AD2d 833). Although petitioner now claims that he was authorized to provide legal assistance to those inmates, that issue is not preserved for review inasmuch as he did not raise it at the hearing ( see Matter of Madison v Cunningham, 67 AD3d 1141, 1142). Petitioner's claim that the Hearing- Officer failed to interview the author of the misbehavior report and to obtain certain documentary evidence is also unpreserved. Finally, petitioner's claim that he had complied with the correspondence policy by leaving the letters in an appropriate, yet unsecured, location in the law library and that someone else had taken the letters and placed them in the B2 mail bag raised a credibility question for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Edwards v Leclaire, 71 AD3d 1199; Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1085, 1086).

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.