Title: Conway v. Cumming

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

CONWAY_V_CUMMING.92-286; 161 Vt. 113; 636 A.2d 735

[Opinion Filed 09-Jul-1993]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 02-Nov-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 92-286


 Charles Conway                               Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

 Georgia Cumming, Philip                      November Term, 1992
 Fitzpatrick, Philip Scripture
 and Joseph Patrissi


 Alden T. Bryan, J.

 Charles Conway, pro se, Swanton, plaintiff-appellant

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Thomas J. Rushford,
    Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for defendants-appellees



 PRESENT:   Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ., Peck, J. (Ret.)
   Specially Assigned.



      GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff was convicted of sexual assault, sentenced to a
 term of five to twenty years, and is now an inmate committed to the custody
 of the Commissioner of Corrections.  He appeals from a judgment of the
 Chittenden Superior Court denying injunctive relief to direct the
 Commissioner to restore plaintiff's furlough status.  We affirm.
      As an inmate, plaintiff participated in the Vermont Treatment Program
 for Sexual Aggressors (VTPSA) as part of a rehabilitation effort.  In
 October 1989, the Commissioner began granting plaintiff furloughs to be in
 the community for short visits.  See 28 V.S.A. { 808(a).  In September
 1990, the Commissioner revoked plaintiff's participation in the furlough
 program on the ground that plaintiff had engaged in negative behavior, the
 specific nature of which is not before us.  The Commissioner did not provide
 plaintiff with a hearing or other process in which he could respond to the
 reasons given for revoking his furlough status.  Thereafter, plaintiff
 sought an injunction challenging the Commissioner's decision on grounds that
 a revocation without hearing violated his rights under the United States and
 Vermont constitutions as well as under Vermont statutory law. (FN1) The trial
 court denied the relief, concluding that plaintiff's furlough status was not
 a protected liberty interest under the United States Constitution and that
 Vermont law did not create a protected liberty interest in furloughs.  This
 appeal followed.
                                     I.
      The central issue on appeal is whether plaintiff's due process rights
 were violated when his furlough status was terminated without a hearing.
 Under the United States Constitution, "due process is flexible and calls
 for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands."
 Morrissey v. Brewer,