87 A.3d 449
Vt.2013Background
- Inman, an inmate at Northern State Correctional Facility, is serving a 26-month to 8-year sentence for aggravated assault and escape.
- DOC’s InDAP program allows inmates convicted of domestic violence to participate in educational/reform courses, with potential early release after minimum sentence, 104 group meetings, and DOC approval.
- Inman began InDAP in December 2010 and continued after meeting the minimum one-year requirement, anticipating early release after his April 2012 minimum sentence date.
- As release date approached, Inman sought a telephone hearing in Windsor Superior Court for visitation with his children; a hearing was held December 22, 2011.
- After a caseworker report and Inman’s response, InDAP probation was imposed January 17, 2012 for 90 days, suspending phone privileges; he was terminated from InDAP on January 23, 2012.
- Inman appealed the termination within the DOC and then to the superior court, arguing Rule 75 review; the State moved to dismiss under Rheaume v. Pollito for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the superior court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Inman’s InDAP termination subject to judicial review under Rule 75 or mandamus/certiorari? | Inman argues Rule 75 review is available; seeks certiorari/mandamus. | Rheaume forecloses review of DOC programming decisions; no statutory right to review. | Rheaume controls; no review available. |
| May mandamus review apply as an extreme abuse of discretion to InDAP termination? | Termination constitutes extreme abuse of discretion and merits mandamus. | Programming decisions fall within DOC discretion; mandamus not available. | Mandamus not available for extreme abuse here. |
| Can certiorari review apply to the DOC termination of InDAP participation? | Termination resembles quasi-judicial disciplinary action warranting certiorari. | DOC is exercising broad discretion in programming decisions, not quasi-judicial action. | Certiorari review inapplicable; termination is a programming decision within DOC discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rheaume v. Pollito, 190 Vt. 245 (2011 VT 72) (review of DOC programming decisions is limited; no review for programming decisions)
- Nash v. Coxon, 155 Vt. 336 (1990 VT) (educational programming decisions ordinarily not reviewable)
- Mason v. Thetford Sch. Bd., 142 Vt. 495 (1983 VT) (no absolute right to appellate review of administrative decisions)
- Vt. State Employees Ass’n v. Vt. CJT Council, 167 Vt. 191 (1997 VT) (mandamus extended to extreme abuses of discretion involving legal duties)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Makovec, 157 Vt. 84 (1991 VT) (extreme abuse of discretion requires a clear duty not performed)
- Town of Glover v. Anderson, 120 Vt. 153 (1957 VT) (mandamus appropriate where there is a clear legal duty)
- Sanborn v. Weir, 95 Vt. 1 (1911 VT) (board/veterinary decisions; mandamus discussed in context of discretion)
- State v. Forte, 159 Vt. 550 (1993 VT) (mandamus and discretionary judgments; abuse of discretion context)