Case Title: In re Covino

Citation: 163 Vt 639, 660 A.2d 299

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_COVINO.94-286; 163 Vt 639; 660 A.2d 299

[Filed 11-Apr-1995]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 9-May-1995]


                                  ENTRY ORDER

                        SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-286

                                MARCH TERM, 1995


In re Robert Covino                 }         APPEALED FROM:
                                    }
                                    }
                                    }         Franklin Superior Court
                                    }                               
                                    }
                                    }         DOCKET NO. S291-89Fc
    


               In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

    Petitioner, an inmate at the Northwest State Correctional Facility
(NWSCF), brought an action contesting the validity of a disciplinary report
filed against him, and appeals an order of the Franklin Superior Court
granting the State's motion for summary judgment.  We affirm.

    In August 1989, petitioner approached an administrative assistant at the
NWSCF concerning his pay account, which he believed was in error.  The State
charged in a disciplinary report that in the course of the ensuing discussion
he became verbally combative and directed abusive language at the assistant,
causing other inmates in the unit to become unruly as well, in violation of
an NWSCF rule against agitating or provoking staff. 

    After a disciplinary hearing at which petitioner was present, a hearing
officer found that reports from the assistant in question and an additional
staff member "clearly show that Covino argued about [the pay account] issue,
used foul language and called [the assistant] derogatory names."  He added
that "I believe that Covino did agitate [and] provoke [the assistant] . . .
and is guilty."  The hearing officer's decision was affirmed by a two-person
disciplinary committee and reviewed and affirmed by the facility
Superintendent and the Commissioner of Corrections.

    Petitioner contends on appeal that the court should not have affirmed an
administrative finding on the basis that it was supported by "some evidence." 
In LaFaso v. Patrissi, 161 Vt. 46, 51,