RENDERED: NOVEMBER2, 2017 

TO BE PUBLISHED 

~uprttttt filnurl of ~tnfutk\! 

JANET CONOVER, WARDEN 

AND 

KRISTINE GOETZINGER, 

ADJUSTMENT OFFICER 

2016-SC-000320-DG 

v. 

ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS 

CASE 'NO. 2015-CA-000039-MR 

SHELBY CIRCUIT C.OURT NO. 14-CI-00550 

KRISTY LAWLESS 

APPELLANTS 

APPELLEE 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM 

REVERSING 

This is a prison discipline· case ix:ivolving a fight between two inmates in 

which a Corrections officer was injured. One of the inmates involved in the 

altercation, Appellee, Kristy Lawless, was disciplined ~s a result of the officer's 

injury .. She appealed that disciplinary determination through the appropriate 

channels and eventually exhausted her appeals as a matter of right resulting in 

a decision by the Court of Appeais ruling in her fa~or. For the forgoing 

reasons, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial 

court's order denying Lawless' petition. 
Background 

In 2014, Appellee, Kristy Lawless, and Remonia Mills were inmates at the 

Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women (KCIW). Mills had previously· 

assaulted Lawless and was labeled as "maximum assaultive status." On 

February 24, 2014: Mills violently attacked Lawless during recreation time. 

Two Corrections officers, Officer Jessica Evans and Sergeant Timothy Schmid, 

intervened to break up the altercation.,· Officer Evans was injured. 

Officer Evans subsequently filed a·disciplinary report claiming that 

Lawless kicked her in the knee during the fight. As a result of th~ report, an 

investigation commenced and Lawless was charged with a disciplinary 

violation-physical actions resulting in death or injury to an employee. 

Adjustment Officer (AO), Kristine Goetzinger, conducted a hearing in March 

2014. At the hearing, Lawless denied kicking Officer Evans and stated that she 

was ~erely trying to defend herself from Mills. Lawless requested that AO . 

Goetzinger review the security ~ideo that do~umented the fight. She als.o 

presented statements from two witnesses. One statement was from the other 

Corrections officer who responded to the ·altercation. · That offic~r confirmed 

that Lawless was attempting to defend herself and was coope~ative once Mills 

was separated from her. The officer made no mention of Officer Evans' injury. 

The second statement was from another irimate claiming that she did not 

witness Lawless strike Officer Evans and that Lawless was as compliant as 

possible. 

2 
After considering the evidence, AO Goetzinger found Lawless guilty of the 

charged disciplinary offense and sentenced her to 365 days in segregation and 

1,321 days of lost good-time credit. AO Gbetzinger's findings state in pertinent 

part as follows:· 

Inmate stated that Officer Evans was in the middle of breaking up 

the fight and is questioning how the officer could determirie who 

caused the injury to her. Inmate states that she was compliant, 

just like [Sergeant Schmid's] statement is saying, but that the 

other. inmate was not compliant·. . . . Due to this report from 

[Officer Evans] that injury was caused from this inmate while 

trying to separate a physical altercation, I am going to find her 

guilty of this charge. 

Lawless appealed to the Warden, who affirmed but reduced h~r punishment to 

180 days in segregation and 199 days of lost good-time credit. 

Lawless then filed a prose declaration of rights action against Warden 

Conover and AO Goetzinger in Shelby· Circuit Court wherein she argued that 

the disciplinary proceeding violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to due 

process. Approximately two weeks later, AO Goetzinger executed an affidavit 

. . 

stating: 1) she reviewed the surveillance video per Lawless' request; 2) nothing 

in the camera footage altered her determination th.at Lawless was guilty; and 3) 

·that her determination was not based on the camera footage but rather on the 

· statement of the officer (victim) regarding who injured her. 

Two days later, the ~ircuit court dismissed Lawless' petition finding that 

she had "received due process and there is some evidence in the record to 

support the finding of the adjustmerit officer." The court did not discuss the 

surveillance video which apparently was not in the record. Lawless appealed 

. the court's decision to the Court ·of Appeals which,' in a spilt opinion, reversed 

3 
the trial court's order dismissing Lawless' petition. The Court of_ Appeals 

remanded the case to the trial court and ordered the court review and consider 

the surveillance video .. Warden Conover and AO Goetzinger (Appellants), 

appealed to this Court. I 

Standard of Review 

) 

"[P]rison disciplinary proceedings are not criminal prosecutions_; and 

'-" · punishment is imposed as warranted by the ~everity of the offense in order to 

correct and control inmate behavior within the·prison." Ramirez v. Nietzel, 424 

S.W.3d 911, 916 (Ky. 2014). Generally s~eaking, due process is satisfied if "the 

findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the 

I • 

record .... " Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. 

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). "The primary inquiry is 'whether there is any 

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the 

disciplinary board~"' Ramirez, 424 S.W.3d at 917 (citation omitted). With this 

minimal standard in mind, we now turn to the merits of the present case. 

Analysis 

The primary issue in this case is whether Lawless' procedural due 

. process rights were violated. That issue is squarely resolved by our holding in. 

Ramirez: 

When a prisoner maintains that he was denied a meaningful 

opportunity to present a defense due to [an AO's] refus_al to 

consider exculpatory evidence, then procedural due process 

requires a [circuit] court to conduct an in camera review·of the 

After the parties filed their briefs, Lawless 'filed a motion to strike a 

portion of Appellants' reply brief. That moti~n is hereby denied. 

4 
evidence to determine whether it wa·s indeed exculpatory and 

whether, in light of the new evidence, "some evidence" existed for 

the AO's finding of guilt. 

Id. at 920 (quoting Felder v. McBride, 121 Fed.Appx. 655, 656-57 (7th 

Cir.2004)). 

In applying our: holding in Ramirez to the present facts, it is clear that Lawless 

was-not denied a meaningfulopportunity to con.sider exculpatory evidence-the 

surveillance video. In fact, the AO submitted an affidavit specifically 

addressirig that video. Although she executed the affidavit after she rendered 

· her disciplinary decision! she suppleme:r:ited her findings in a timely manner 

and in compliance with the due process dictates discussed in Ramirez .. Any 

error that may have occurred here was harmless. Moreover, the AO was very 

clear that she based her disciplinary decision on the statement of the officer 

. . 

(victim). That certainly satisfies the "som(;! evidence" standard adopted by the 

' . \ 

United States Supreme Court.· Walpole, 472 U.S . .at 454. Therefore, there was 

no .error requiring reversal of the AO's decision. 

A secondary issu~ discussed at length by the Court of Appeals concerns 

what steps the circuit court must take in order to satisfy due process. The 

Court of Appeals read Ramirez to require that the circuit court review allegedly 

. exculpatory evidence and to document its finding based on tqat evidence. 

! . 

However, Ramirez makes no such pronouncement. 

Ramirez is distinguishable from this case because "the AO denied 

[Ramirez's] request" to introdμce surveillance-camera footage of the incident. 

Ramirez, 424 S.W.3d at 915. We held that "an AO must review security footage 

5 
if an inmate requests such review[.]" Id. at 920. The trial court's review in 

Ramirez was- necessary only because Ramirez's due process right to request in 

camera review was denied by the AO, which was not the case here. It appears 

that the Court of Appeals in the present case read Ramirez in the context of 

Fo,ley v. Haney, 345 S.W.3d 861 (Ky. App. 2011). 

Foley concerned an AO's failure to review allegedly exculpatory cafeteria 

and medical records, and to make other necessary findings. Id. at 864. The 

court he~d the AO denied the inmate due process by failing to review the 

records. On remand; the Foley court ordered the AO to rev:iew the allegedly 

exculpatory recorc;ls, indicate that he reviewed the records in his written 

-· 

finding, and· describe whether the _records confirrn.~d or contradicted the 

inmate's narrative. Id. at 866. Because Ramirez was published after Foley, the 

Court of Appeals determined that Ramirez implicitly reaffirmed Foley.. The 

Court of Appeals then extended Foley to apply not only to AO decisions, but 

also the review. of those decisions by the circuit court. It is therefore necessary 

to Clarify our decision in Ramire_z and how it relates to Foley. 

'1n order to satisfy due process, AOs must do the following when 

requested by an inmate to review allegedly exculpatory evidence that .is 

.. reasonably accessible and available for review: 1) review allegedly exculpatory 

records; 2) indicate that she reviewed the records in her written finding; and 3) .· 

consider the impact of that evidence when rendering h_er decision. That 

· standard was satisfied in the present case by the AO's timely execution of a . . 

supplemental affidavit. 

6 
For appeals before the circuit court, however, ~uch findings are not 

necessary. Rather, the circuit court is required to review the allegedly 

exculpatory evidence in the event the AO failed to do so. In the absence of a· 

dispute concerning whether the AO considered allegedly exculpatory evidence, 

"[t]he primary inquiry [of the circuit court] is 'whether there is any evidence in 

the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary 

board. m Ramirez, 424 'S.W.3d at 917 (citation omitted).· That st.andard was 

satisfied here. 

·Lastly, the Court of.Appeals discussed an issue that neither party 

briefed-who. is responsible for transmitting the record in prison disciplinary 

cases. The court determined that the burden was upon the Department of 

Corrections. Because this issue was not raised before the circuit court or by 

the parties, we need not discuss it here. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby reverse the decision of the Court of 

Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order denying Lawless' petition. 

Minton, C.J.; Hughes, Keller, Venters, and Wright, JJ.; sitting. All 

coricur. VanMeter, J., not sitting. 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: 

Angela Turner Dunham 

Justice and Public Safety Cabinet 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: 

Heather Hodgson 

Assistant Public Advocate 

7