Andres v. Gold, No. S0986-03 CnC (Katz, J., Oct. 29, 2003) 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been 

reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is 

not guaranteed.] 

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

Chittenden County, ss.: Docket No. S0986-03 CnC 

ANDRES 

v. 

 

GOLD 

ENTRY 

 Petitioner, Robert Andres, was returned to prison after he was caught 

violating the terms of his furlough by drinking alcohol. Andres challenges 

the hearing revoking his furlough on due process grounds. Based on the 

evidence apparent in the record and two hearings concerning Andres’s 

admitted alcohol use while on furlough, we deny the challenge. 

 Andres’s due process must be analyzed within the context of a 

prison environment which necessarily limits many privileges. Conway v. 

Cumming, 161 Vt. 113, 115 (1993). His furloughed status is characterized 
as more of a particular right or status within an institution rather than as a 

parolee. Id. at 116. As such, its revocation is only due a minimal amount 

of due process if any at all. Id. at 118 (finding no direct Constitutional or 

statutory liberty interest in the revocation of furlough). The amount of 

process Andres received, however, is not an issue since the Department of 

Corrections did hold a hearing prior to revoking Andres’s furlough and did 

not revoke the furlough in an arbitrary manner. Since strict proscription of 

alcohol use is one of the major terms of his furlough, Andres’s only 

challenge can be to the factual support for the Department’s findings. See 

Conway, 161 at 116 (upholding the revocation of a furlough based on a 

violation of a term of the furlough); Parker v. Gorczyk, 170 Vt. 263, 269–

70 (1999) (noting that the Commissioner has the statutory power to 

promulgate the standards for furlough). 

 While the proper promulgation of Department “directives” is very 

murky, strict proscription of alcohol by inmates or furloughees must be 

within the authority of the Department even without a particular, properly 

promulgated regulation. It is our purpose then only to review the record 

from that hearing for “some evidence” of a violation of the terms. LaFaso 

v. Patrissi, 161 Vt. 46, 51 (1993) (discussing the “some evidence” rule 

established in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985)). In Andres’s 

case, there are several sources to support the finding of alcohol use. During 

the hearing Andres admitted using alcohol while on furlough. Evidence 

from Corrections Officers supported this. They reported that Andres was 

seen in a bar drinking, that he denied being Robert Andres, and that he fled 

from the bar. Although Officer Decatur could not initially identify Andres, 

he very clearly reported that Andres was, in retrospect, the person he 

encountered in the bar. Later, he was picked up at home by officers who 

found alcohol on his breath. All three sources provide some evidence for 
the finding that Andres was using alcohol. That finding in turn supports the 

conclusion of the Department to revoke Andres’s furlough. 

 On that basis, Andres’s petition to challenge his revocation of 

furlough is denied. 

 Dated at Burlington, Vermont________________, 2003. 

 ________________________ 

 Judge