Title: Ex parte Shaheed El-Alim Shabazz a/k/a Mario Kim. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Mario Kim v. Alabama Department of Corrections)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1061837
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 2008

REL: 02/15/2008
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008
_________________________
1061837
_________________________
Ex parte Shaheed El-Alim Shabazz a/k/a Mario Kim
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Mario Kim
v.
Alabama Department of Corrections)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-06-1119;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-06-0352)
LYONS, Justice.
1061837
The defendant styled his petition for a writ of
1
certiorari to this Court as "Ex parte Shaheed El-Alim Shabazz
a/k/a Mario Kim."  However, the Court of Criminals Appeals'
unpublished memorandum under review here is styled "Mario Kim
v. Alabama Department of Corrections." 
The alleged conflict of the Court of Criminal Appeals'
2
decision with Martin v. State, 616 So. 2d 384 (Ala. Crim. App.
1993), and Davis v. State, 648 So. 2d 658 (Ala. Crim. App.
1994), discussed below, is the only issue raised in Shabazz's
petition for a writ of certiorari that properly invokes this
Court's jurisdiction.  Accordingly, our review is limited to
that issue.
2
The defendant, Shaheed El-Alim Shabazz a/k/a Mario Kim,1
petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review
whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the
trial court's judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of
certiorari.  We granted certiorari review.   For the reasons
2
discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the Court of
Criminal Appeals.
I. Facts and Procedural History
The Department of Corrections ("DOC") charged Shabazz
with violating Ala. Admin. Code (Department of Corrections),
regulation no. 403, violation 90, which prohibits "consumption
or use of, or [being] under the influence of alcohol,
narcotics or other intoxicants."  The evidentiary basis for
the charge against Shabazz was a urine sample that tested
1061837
3
positive for narcotics.  After a disciplinary hearing in which
evidence of the positive urine sample was received, Shabazz
was found guilty of violating the DOC regulation and punished
with segregation for 45 days and loss of store, telephone, and
visitation privileges for 45 days.  Shabazz did not lose any
good-time credits as a result of his alleged violation.  
Shabazz petitioned the Montgomery Circuit Court for a
writ of certiorari to review DOC's determination that he had
violated the DOC regulation.  Among other things, Shabazz
contended that the results of the test on his urine sample
were inadmissible at the disciplinary hearing because, he
says, there was no evidence establishing a valid chain of
custody for the urine sample.  The trial court denied the
petition.  
Shabazz then appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the
trial court, without an opinion.  Kim v. Alabama Dep't of
Corr. (No. CR-06-0352, August 24, 2007), __ So. 2d __ (Ala.
Crim. App. 2007) (table).  In an unpublished memorandum, the
Court of Criminal Appeals stated that Shabazz was not entitled
to due-process protections because his punishment did not
1061837
4
involve a protected liberty interest, and the Court of
Criminals Appeals therefore did not need to review the
evidence 
to 
determine 
whether 
Shabazz's 
due-process
protections, such as the requirement that a valid chain of
custody for the urine sample be proved, were violated.  We
granted certiorari review to determine whether the Court of
Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's
judgment. 
II. Standard of Review 
"'This Court reviews pure questions of law in criminal
cases de novo.'"  Ex parte Morrow, 915 So. 2d 539, 541 (Ala.
2004) (quoting Ex parte Key, 890 So. 2d 1056, 1059 (Ala.
2003)).
III. Analysis
Shabazz argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred
in concluding that he was not entitled to due-process
protections, particularly the requirement that a valid chain
of custody be proved for evidence introduced against a
defendant, during his disciplinary proceeding.  Shabazz
asserts that Martin v. State, 616 So. 2d 384 (Ala. Crim. App.
1993), and Davis v. State, 648 So. 2d 658 (Ala. Crim. App.
1061837
5
1994), clearly hold that, at a prison-disciplinary hearing in
which an inmate is charged with consumption of a narcotic, the
disciplinary board must introduce oral and/or documentary
evidence of a valid chain of custody of a urine sample where
the results of the test on that sample are introduced against
the inmate. 
In Martin, an inmate appealed the trial court's judgment
denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
his 
prison 
disciplinary 
for 
violating 
a 
prison 
rule
prohibiting the consumption of narcotics.  616 So. 2d at 385.
The opinion does not describe the nature of the discipline
imposed upon the inmate.  In the Court of Criminal Appeals,
the inmate asserted that his due-process rights were violated
at the disciplinary hearing because the disciplinary board had
presented no evidence of a valid chain of custody of the urine
sample that tested positive for narcotics and that provided
the evidentiary basis for the disciplinary.  616 So. 2d at
385.   
The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the results
of the test on the urine sample were inadmissible against the
inmate because a valid chain of custody of the urine sample
1061837
6
was not introduced.  616 So. 2d at 388.  The court reversed
the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause to the
trial court with instructions to order DOC to afford the
inmate a new disciplinary hearing.  616 So. 2d at 388-89.  The
Court of Criminal Appeals stated:
"We hold that in the context of a prison
disciplinary hearing in which the inmate is charged
with the consumption of a controlled substance, the
disciplinary 
board must introduce oral and/or
documentary evidence of a valid chain of custody of
the urine sample where the results of a test on that
sample are introduced against the inmate and where
the inmate raises some objection to that chain of
custody."
616 So. 2d at 388.
Similarly, in Davis, an inmate appealed the trial court's
judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for
relief from two prison disciplinaries for violating a prison
rule prohibiting the consumption of narcotics. 648 So. 2d at
659.  The opinion does not describe the nature of the
discipline imposed upon the inmate.  In the Court of Criminal
Appeals, the inmate asserted that the evidence of the results
of the tests on his urine samples was inadmissible against him
because a valid chain of custody of the urine samples was not
introduced at his disciplinary hearings.  648 So. 2d at 659.
1061837
We assume the reference to Wolff, without further
3
citation in the Court of Criminal Appeals' unpublished
memorandum, is intended to refer to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539 (1974), in which the United States Supreme Court held
that loss of good-time credits in a prison-disciplinary
proceeding implicated a liberty interest under the Fourteenth
Amendment. 
7
In light of Martin, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the
trial court's judgment denying the inmate's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus and found that the inmate was entitled
to new disciplinary hearings.  648 So. 2d at 659.
The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Shabazz's argument
that Martin and Davis apply to his case.  In its unpublished
memorandum, the court stated: 
"[Shabazz's] reliance on Davis v. State, 648 So.
2d 658 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994), and Martin v. State,
616 So. 2d 384 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993), to support
his contention that the chain of custody of the
urine sample was not proven is flawed, in part,
because those cases were brought in petitions for a
writ of habeas corpus averring that the appellant's
due-process rights had been violated.  Here, because
the deprivations [Shabazz] suffered do not involve
a protected liberty interest, we need not examine
the evidence to determine whether his due-process
rights had been violated, because the due-process
protections discussed in Wolff
 and its progeny are
[3]
not applicable to [Shabazz's] case."
The conclusion reached by the Court of Criminal Appeals is
correct.  However, lest Shabazz erroneously assume that he did
not prevail simply because he failed to invoke the proper
1061837
This Court has held that a petition for the writ of
4
certiorari that should have been filed as a petition for the
writ of habeas corpus and that otherwise meets the procedural
requirements for such a petition must be treated as a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus.  See Ex parte Deramus, 882 So. 2d
875 (Ala. 2002). 
8
writ,  we note that a petition for the writ of habeas corpus
4
will not lie as the vehicle for reviewing an inmate's
punishment for misconduct in prison absent a violation of a
liberty interest.  See Ex parte Woods, 941 So. 2d 259, 261
(Ala. 2006) ("Generally, review by way of a petition for the
writ of habeas corpus is not appropriate unless the inmate
alleges a deprivation of a liberty interest or unless a
liberty interest is at stake."). 
Shabazz's punishment -- loss of certain privileges for 45
days and 45 days' segregation -- does not implicate a liberty
interest.  Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) ("We
hold that Conner's discipline in segregated confinement did
not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in
which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest.");
Summerford v. State, 466 So. 2d 182, 185 (Ala. Crim. App.
1985) ("[W]e do not believe petitioner had a 'liberty
interest' 
protected 
under 
the 
due 
process 
clause 
in
maintaining his store privileges or in being unburdened by an
1061837
9
extra work detail."); Zamudio v. State, 615 So. 2d 156, 157
(Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ("Store and telephone privileges are
not liberty interests, nor does a prisoner have a right not to
have extra work duty imposed, Summerford.").  Where no liberty
interest 
is 
involved, 
due-process protections are 
not
applicable.  See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487; Montanye v. Haymes,
427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) ("As long as the conditions or degree
of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is within
the sentence imposed upon him and is not otherwise violative
of the Constitution, the Due Process Clause does not in itself
subject an inmate's treatment by prison authorities to
judicial oversight."); see also Austin v. Alabama Dep't of
Corr., [Ms. CR-06-0505, April 27, 2007] __ So. 2d __ (Ala.
Crim. App. 2007) ("Turning to the facts of this case [in which
disciplinary involved placement in segregation for 15 days and
the loss of visitation, telephone, and store privileges for 45
days], we note that 'the protections of due process are
implicated only when a loss of a protected liberty interest is
at stake. See, e.g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 94
S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974), and Slawson v. Alabama
Forestry Comm'n, 631 So. 2d 953, 957 (Ala. 1994).'  Ex parte
1061837
10
Woods, 941 So. 2d at 261. Because the appellant did not suffer
the deprivation of a liberty interest, the Wolff due process
protections do not apply to his case.").  
Because Shabazz's punishment did not involve a liberty
interest, Shabazz was not entitled to due-process protections,
such as ensuring a valid chain of custody of evidentiary
material, at his disciplinary hearing.  Because Martin and
Davis apply only in habeas corpus proceedings and because in
Woods we recognized that a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus to review a prison-disciplinary action is appropriate
only when a liberty interest is implicated, Shabazz's reliance
on those cases is misplaced. 
IV. Conclusion 
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
See, Stuart, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.
Cobb, C.J., recuses herself.