Opinion ID: 2453092
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The appeal to the superior court

Text: On October 22, 2007, James filed a notice of appeal in the superior court. He alleged that his due process rights had been violated because no direct evidence of a rule violation was presented at the disciplinary hearing, only hearsay and an ex parte communication. In his brief filed April 6, 2009, James contended that the disciplinary hearing officer's reliance on the hearsay evidence in the incident report, along with Richey's and Mathey's absence from the disciplinary hearing after he had requested their presence, violated his due process rights. [3] James made several additional claims, including that Alaska policies and procedures required audio-recording his disciplinary proceeding. DOC informed Superior Court Judge Craig Stowers that the recording of James's disciplinary hearing was no longer available. The superior court ordered James to prepare a statement of the evidence and testimony at the disciplinary hearing from the best available means, including his recollection. James initially objected to preparing this statement, explaining that one of his claims was that the failure to record the hearing was itself a due process violation and that the superior court's order to replicate the record incorporate[d] the assumption that an audio record had been made. The superior court responded that [t]he effect of an unavailable audio-tape of the disciplinary hearing is the same whether there was never a tape, or it was misplaced or deliberately destroyed. James then filed his Statement of Disciplinary Hearing, [4] and DOC submitted its own Statement in Lieu of Transcript. On September 17, 2009, DOC filed its brief. It argued that Flores properly relied on the incident report to find that James committed the infraction, that James failed to show that he was prejudiced by a third-party staff member writing the incident report, and that the record lacked evidence showing that James complied with the proper procedures to request Richey's presence at the disciplinary hearing. DOC maintained that James's other claims were waived because James failed to raise them during the administrative proceedings. James responded with a reply brief on October 2, 2009. Among other things, James stated that he had made a written request for Richey and Mathey to attend the disciplinary hearing and explained that [t]his would account for why [he] was surprised that Rich[ey] and Mathey were not present at the hearing.