Gregory A. Snow v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board
M2016-01148-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- In August 2015 officers searched cell 2A-230 at Turney Center and found two homemade knives in the cell door; Gregory Snow, an occupant of the cell, was charged with possession of a deadly weapon and found guilty by the disciplinary board.
- Snow maintained he had no knowledge of the knives, argued the knives predated his assignment to the cell (he had been moved into it during a large 2012 reassignment/lockdown), and asserted that vacant cells were not searched as TDOC/TCIX policy required.
- Snow exhausted administrative appeals (warden and commissioner) which affirmed the conviction; he then petitioned the chancery court for a common-law writ of certiorari seeking the disciplinary record, discovery, and vacatur of the conviction.
- The chancery court granted the writ, ordered certification of the administrative record, denied Snow’s request for discovery documents (finding discovery inappropriate absent a showing those documents would demonstrate arbitrariness or illegality), and dismissed the petition on the merits.
- Snow appealed, arguing (inter alia) the trial court abused its discretion by denying discovery, the evidence was insufficient, the board failed to provide adequate findings, and TDOC rules on confidential informants and cell-search procedures were violated.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: discovery was properly denied because Snow’s requested documents sought to attack the intrinsic correctness of the board’s factual determination; the record contained material evidence supporting the board; and procedural or policy lapses outside the Uniform Disciplinary Procedures did not establish a due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying discovery | Snow: requested TOMIS records and memos to show vacant cells were not searched in 2012, which would prove knives preexisted his assignment | State: discovery would require inquiry into intrinsic correctness of disciplinary finding and is not permitted on certiorari review | Denied; court did not abuse discretion because requested documents aimed at reweighing evidence / intrinsic correctness |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disciplinary conviction | Snow: evidence (or testimony elsewhere) shows doors not searched, so knives may predate his occupancy | State: board may rely on knives found in Snow’s cell door and their condition; decision rests on evidence presented at Snow’s hearing | Affirmed; any material evidence (knives in door and appearance) supports board; court may not reweigh evidence |
| Adequacy of board’s written findings (Due Process) | Snow: board failed to state sufficient factual findings and reasons for guilt | State: board’s summary identified the report and two knives as the basis for guilt, meeting minimum requirements | Held adequate; board’s statement met Wolff minimums and was distinguishable from cases where findings were minimal |
| Use of confidential informant procedures | Snow: TDOC policy required a CR-3510 contemporaneous reliability form before relying on confidential info | State: record does not show board relied on confidential info as basis for its decision; the informant-related policy does not bar the search leading to contraband | Held: policy did not apply to discovery of contraband in this context; no due process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Tennessee Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2003) (explains writ of certiorari review limits for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Davison v. Carr, 659 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. 1983) (allows new evidence on jurisdiction/illegality in certiorari review)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process requires a written statement of reasons in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990) (standards for arbitrariness/abuse of discretion)
- Watts v. Civ. Serv. Bd. for Columbia, 606 S.W.2d 274 (Tenn. 1980) (scope of appellate review mirrors trial court’s review of administrative records)
- Abbington Ctr., LLC v. Town of Collierville, 393 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (discusses standards for upholding administrative action if any possible reason exists)