Case Title: Arment v. Henry

Citation: 658 P.2d 663, 98 Wash. 2d 775

Docket Number: 47957-7

State: washington

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Date: 1983-04-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
98 Wn.2d 775 (1983) 658 P.2d 663 RAYMOND ARMENT, ET AL, Appellants, v. WILLIAM E. HENRY, ET AL, Respondents. No. 47957-7. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. February 10, 1983. As amended by order April 20, 1983. *776 Robert Adelman and John Midgley of Evergreen Legal Services, for appellants. Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, and Michael P. Lynch, Assistant, for respondents. [As amended by order of the Supreme Court April 20, 1983.] DOLLIVER, J. Plaintiffs were inmates at the Washington State Corrections Center in Shelton at the time of the "New Year's Riot" in 1981. All are indigent. Each was informed on March 18, 1981, he was scheduled to see the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles for a disciplinary hearing in April. The notices described the charges and stated if the inmate was found guilty, the Board could redetermine the inmate's minimum term and revoke any or all good time credits earned or to be earned. The notices further provided, "You may have an attorney of your choice represent you at the hearing, at your expense.... The law does not provide the authority for the Board to ... pay any attorney fees". On March 24, plaintiffs formally requested appointment of counsel. The requests were denied. On March 27, plaintiffs brought the present action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to compel the Board to appoint counsel. They also sought to prohibit the Board from holding disciplinary hearings without offering to appoint counsel for indigent inmates. On April 2, the trial court entered an interim order which permitted the Board to hold the scheduled disciplinary hearings without providing counsel for plaintiffs, and which also provided safeguards for the plaintiffs should they prevail on their claim of right to counsel. The hearings were held as scheduled, and the minimum term of each plaintiff was lengthened by 3 years. Both sides then filed cross motions for summary judgment. *777 Steve Scott, Director of Institutional Legal Services Project, filed an affidavit in support of the plaintiffs' motion. Scott stated that after Monohan v. Burdman, 84 Wn.2d 922, 530 P.2d 334 (1975) was decided, Institutional Legal Services Project represented all indigent inmates at Parole Board disciplinary hearings, but subsequent decreases in funding made this service no longer possible. Scott, who had represented many inmates at disciplinary hearings, said that an attorney's presence is very useful to an inmate, especially in establishing mitigating factors, exigencies, and rehabilitative factors. He further stated that, from his experience, proof of such factors often resulted in a technically guilty inmate not receiving a lengthened minimum term. The trial court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment. The court held the constitution does not require the State to provide counsel for indigent inmates in disciplinary hearings. The plaintiffs' action has not yet been certified as a class action under CR 23. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is constitutionally required to appoint counsel for an indigent inmate before increasing the inmate's minimum sentence at a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to RCW 9.95.080. Initially, we must distinguish various types of hearings. The hearings in this case were not parole revocation hearings, see RCW 9.95.120-.126, nor were they the type of institutional disciplinary hearings contemplated by WAC 275-88-005 through WAC 275-88-130. They were hearings under RCW 9.95.080, which states: The sanctions which may be imposed under an RCW 9.95.080 Parole Board disciplinary hearing are far more serious than those prescribed under institutional disciplinary hearings. See WAC 275-88-105. Plaintiffs contend that because of the possible severity of the sanctions under RCW 9.95.080 they are entitled as a matter of constitutional right to counsel in an RCW 9.95.080 proceeding. [1] The case law can be stated succinctly: (1) Some minimum due process is required in probation or parole revocation hearings. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484, 92 S. Ct. 2593 (1972); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974); and Monohan v. Burdman, 84 Wn.2d 922, 530 P.2d 334 (1975). (2) There is no constitutional requirement in probation or parole revocation hearings that in all cases indigent prisoners must be provided with counsel, but exceptions are available on a case-by-case basis. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1973). (3) A lesser standard of due process is required in disciplinary proceedings when a prisoner is already incarcerated rather than on probation or parole. Not only is the sanction in prison disciplinary hearings "qualitatively and quantitatively different from the revocation of parole or probation" but the State also has a far different stake in prison disciplinary hearings than in the revocation of probation or parole. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra at 561-62. In Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 496-97, 63 L. Ed. 2d 552, 100 S. Ct. 1254 (1980), the Supreme Court stated: See United States v. DeRobertis, 508 F. Supp. 360 (N.D. Ill. 1981). In Monohan v. Burdman, supra, relied upon by plaintiffs, Monohan alleged a tentative parole release date given him while in the Washington State Corrections Center was canceled without appropriate notice and an adjudicatory hearing. He had been on furlough pursuant to RCW 72.66 to undertake development of a parole plan in his home community when he allegedly became involved in a drug oriented party and was charged with disorderly conduct. On the same day Monohan was returned to the Corrections Center the authorities there were advised all charges had been dismissed. The court posed the issue as follows: Monohan, at 926. In contrast to Monohan, the hearings in this case were for the discipline of infractions which occurred within the prison. Plaintiffs urge us to adopt a per se rule for right of counsel in RCW 9.95.080 disciplinary hearings. This we refuse to do. As we have pointed out no such requirement is made by *780 the United States Supreme Court even in probation or parole revocation hearings. Although Monohan held minimal due process hearings were required in the circumstances of that case which involved parole rescission, the court did not list right to counsel in its catalog of minimum due process requirements. Right of counsel is conspicuous by its absence. Monohan v. Burdman, supra at 930. Even though the penalties may be severe, the hearing under RCW 9.95.080 is essentially an informal procedure (compare RCW 9.95.080 and Board of Prison Terms and Paroles rule 4.070(4), State Register XX-XX-XXX (1982), with RCW 9.95.120-.126). This hearing need not have the "full range of procedures suggested by Morrissey for alleged parole violators". Wolff v. McDonnell, supra at 561. The same rationale articulated in Wolff v. McDonnell is applicable here: (Footnote omitted.) Wolff v. McDonnell, supra at 562-63. The proceeding here is comparable to the proceeding in Wolff v. McDonnell. It is a hearing to determine and sanction misconduct within the prison. We hold due process does not require a right of counsel in an RCW 9.95.080 hearing. In addition to their due process contentions, plaintiffs also claim a violation of the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles rule 4.070(4) provides: State Register XX-XX-XXX (1982), at 24. Plaintiffs rely on Dillenburg v. Morris, 84 Wn.2d 353, 525 P.2d 770 (1974), which involved an on-site parole revocation hearing. In a parole revocation hearing RCW 9.95.122 permits an alleged parole violator "to be represented by an attorney of his own choosing and at his own expense". It also allows counsel for an indigent alleged violator, "Provided, That funds are available for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses." RCW 9.95.122. The court held the statute violated state and federal operation of equal protection under the law. [2] Dillenburg is distinguishable. Here the statute in question, RCW 9.95.080, in contrast to RCW 9.95.122, does not provide for any right of representation by counsel at disciplinary hearings. Rather than being controlled by Dillenburg, the case before us is analogous to Ganz v. Bensinger, *782 480 F.2d 88 (7th Cir.1973) and Cruz v. Skelton, 543 F.2d 86 (5th Cir.1976). In Ganz the claim was a constitutional right to have appointed counsel at a parole release hearing while Cruz involved the right of counsel at a parole application proceeding. In both cases there was an agency similar to the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles. Each agency had adopted a rule relative to counsel for an inmate. In both cases the agency rules failed to provide counsel for the indigent. The rule in Ganz stated "relatives, friends and counsel for the prisoners may attend and be heard in behalf of the prisoners whose names appear on the docket, as well as persons who desire to protest the release of the prisoners." Ganz, at 90 n. 4, quoting Illinois Pardon and Parole Board rule 8. In Cruz the agency rule stated, "`Any interested person or members of the family may appear before the Board on behalf of an inmate with or without legal counsel.'" Cruz, at 95, quoting Rules and Regulations, Texas Department of Corrections, § 7.6 (1973). The rule of the Washington Parole Board simply provides the "prisoner will have the right to have an attorney present". Board of Prison Terms and Paroles rule 4.070(4). The court in Ganz observed, Ganz, at 90. Judge Stevens (now Justice Stevens) writing for the court stated: Ganz, at 91. The court in Cruz stated, (Footnote omitted.) Cruz, at 96. We concur in the reasoning of Ganz and Cruz and hold the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is not required under the equal protection clause of the United States and Washington Constitutions either to repeal its rule permitting counsel to be present at a disciplinary hearing or to provide counsel for indigent inmates at State expense. Affirmed. WILLIAMS, C.J., and ROSELLINI, STAFFORD, BRACHTENBACH, DIMMICK, and PEARSON, JJ., concur. DORE, J. (dissenting) The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles (Board) should be constitutionally required to appoint counsel for an indigent inmate before increasing the inmate's minimum sentence at a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to RCW 9.95.080. I would reverse. Though the State is not constitutionally obligated to provide counsel in all cases, it should do so where the indigent probationer or parolee may have difficulty in presenting his version of disputed facts without the examination or cross examination of witnesses or the presentation of complicated documentary evidence. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1973), interpreting the due process protection afforded in probation or parole revocation hearings under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484, 92 S. Ct. 2593 (1972). The majority maintains a Board hearing under RCW 9.95.080 is analogous to the in-system disciplinary hearing *784 described in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974). In Wolff, the prison inmates were faced with possible withholding of "good-time credits" for alleged misconduct within the institution. The Court held the inmates had no right to retained or appointed counsel in such proceedings, although counsel substitutes should be provided in certain cases. The majority apparently bases its analogy to Wolff on these premises: (1) the loss suffered by an inmate at a Board disciplinary hearing is no greater than that of an inmate losing "good-time credits" and (2) Board disciplinary hearings are not contested cases like parole revocations of Morrissey, but are merely behavioral adjustment tools as in Wolff, and the insertion of counsel would change the nature of the hearings. I cannot accept this misguided logic. The majority confuses the Board's power not to certify good time with its ability to take away future good time. The two functions are controlled by different statutes, have considerably different impacts on the individual and, appropriately enough, invoke different due process considerations. The only statute that authorizes the Board to take away future good time is RCW 9.95.080. In Monohan v. Burdman, 84 Wn.2d 922, 530 P.2d 334 (1975), this court held that the right of minimal due process hearings, such as were guaranteed to probationers and parolees under Gagnon and Morrissey, should be accorded to proceedings under RCW 9.95.080 leading up to the cancellation of a previously established tentative parole release date for reasons other than inability to develop an acceptable parole rehabilitation plan. The majority confuses the obligation of the Board under RCW 9.95.080 with the powers conferred upon it under RCW 9.95.070, the type of statute under consideration in Wolff. RCW 9.95.070 allows the Board to certify past good time in an effort to adjust inmates' daily behavior, and is far different from RCW 9.95.080, which seeks to severely punish inmates for serious infractions. The Board may not take away future good time absent a hearing pursuant to *785 RCW 9.95.080. The disciplinary hearings in the present case are quasi-judicial adversary hearings akin to the parole revocation hearings in Morrissey. The potential loss suffered by the inmates here is far greater than that imposed upon the inmates in Wolff. The majority in fact concedes "[t]he sanctions which may be imposed under an RCW 9.95.080 Parole Board disciplinary hearing are far more serious than those prescribed under institutional disciplinary hearings. See WAC 275-88-105." Majority opinion, at 778. Additionally, the term of imprisonment may be extended only after discrete factual findings. The Board itself acknowledged the adversary nature of the disciplinary proceedings when it adopted Board rule 4.070(4), which allows inmates who can afford counsel to be represented. The same rationale we articulated in Monohan is applicable here: (Italics mine.) Monohan, at 929. The right to counsel is required "when procedural fairness demands it." Tetro v. Tetro, 86 Wn.2d 252, 253, 544 P.2d 17 (1975). Without counsel, the inmates here are left alone to prepare a defense against a charge of rioting that occurred almost 100 miles away. The majority in effect expects these young inmates, who never even graduated from high school, to present their versions of a disputed set of facts where the presentation requires the examining and cross-examining of witnesses and the offering or dissecting of complex documentary evidence, all without benefit of counsel. This is precisely the situation where procedural *786 fairness demands the right to counsel. I would reverse. UTTER, J., concurs with DORE, J. Reconsideration denied April 20, 1983.