Grenda Harmer v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board
M2016-01156-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Mar 2, 2017Background
- Inmate Grenda Harmer received a disciplinary report (Oct. 3, 2015) at Turney Center for possession of contraband after a USB with pornographic files was allegedly found on a library computer he was using.
- Harmer signed the Disciplinary Report and later signed the CR-1834 Hearing Summary on Oct. 9, 2015, indicating a guilty plea and waiving multiple due-process rights (notice, witnesses, appeal).
- CR-1834 referenced attachment CR-3171 (Agreement to Plead Guilty and Waiver), but no CR-3171 was attached; a blank CR-3171 exists in the record.
- Harmer alleged his plea was invalid because (1) the waiver was not signed in the presence of staff per TDOC policy, (2) the board chairman did not verbally question him about voluntariness, (3) an inmate advisor improperly assisted, and (4) the written Hearing Summary lacked sufficient findings.
- Warden and TDOC commissioner affirmed the disciplinary decision (noting a guilty plea precludes appeal). Harmer petitioned for writ of certiorari in chancery court; the court denied relief. Harmer appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punishment implicates a protected liberty or property interest | Harmer argued disciplinary action violated due process | Defendants argued sanctions were minor and not atypical | Held: Sanctions (written warning, $4 fine, 9-month package restriction) are de minimis; no protected liberty interest triggered due process (affirmed) |
| Whether waiver invalid because chairman did not verbally question Harmer per TDOC policy | Harmer: waiver invalid absent the chairman's verbal questioning to ensure voluntariness | Defendants: Harmer signed CR-1834 four times acknowledging waiver; chairman attested he read rights and witnessed signature | Held: Even if chairman did not question verbally, signatures on CR-1834 showing waiver and no substantial prejudice defeat relief |
| Whether missing CR-3171 attachment invalidates plea | Harmer: plea invalid because CR-3171 (required attachment) was not signed/attached | Defendants: CR-1834 contains the same substantive waivers; no prejudice shown by missing attachment | Held: Omission of CR-3171 is a minor deviation; no substantial prejudice shown, so plea stands |
| Whether inmate advisor participation, inadequate written findings, or denial of appeal rendered process arbitrary | Harmer: inmate advisor pressured him; findings lacked specificity; appeals were rubber-stamped | Defendants: Record lacks proof of improper advisor role; CR-1834 contains plea, report, and findings; waiver precluded appeal | Held: No relief — advisor issue not shown to violate Uniform Disciplinary Procedures; written findings adequate given guilty plea; appeal bars apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2003) (describing certiorari review of prison disciplinary boards and de minimis fines not invoking due process)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interest exists only when disciplinary restraints are atypical and a significant hardship)
- Mandela v. Campbell, 978 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. 1998) (TDOC Uniform Disciplinary Procedures govern prison disciplinary matters)
- Jeffries v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 108 S.W.3d 862 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (minor procedural deviations do not require dismissal absent prejudice)