Opinion ID: 2453092
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Additional proceedings in the superior court

Text: On May 6 James filed a motion to amend judgment, again arguing that the failure to record the disciplinary hearing violated due process. The motion also included James's affidavit, in which he alleged that he submitted a cop-out [6] requesting the writer of the report, and Mr. Richey, to be present at [his] hearing as soon as he received the incident report. James claimed: As there was no cop-out box for use of the inmates in the hole, the procedure was to place cop-outs in the space between the door and frame, for officers to pick up during their inspection rounds. I placed the cop-out in the space between the door and frame that evening. When I awoke the following morning, the cop-out was not there. My reasonable assumption was that an officer had taken it and placed it with the inter-institutional disburs[e]ment mail. James added that after receiving notice of his disciplinary hearing he informed the officer that [he] had already put in a cop-out in which [he] requested the writer of the report, and Mr. Richey to be present at [his] hearing. On June 16, 2010, the superior court denied James's motion as substantively without merit and ... procedurally defective because it was untimely and submit[ted] new facts. James filed a notice of appeal on June 23.