Norwood v. Roberts
393 P.3d 169
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In August 2014, CO Burge reported that inmate Larry Norwood shoved/kicked an office door into him after Burge tried to close it; Burge charged Norwood with violating K.A.R. 44-12-306 (threaten/intimidate).
- At the disciplinary hearing Norwood pled not guilty, claimed Burge pushed the door into him, and identified two inmate witnesses who refused to testify.
- The hearing officer questioned Burge, reviewed surveillance video outside Norwood’s presence, and summarized the tape as showing Norwood pushing the door into the officer.
- The hearing officer found Norwood guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, fined him $10, and Norwood alleged collateral consequences (job/privileges lost).
- Norwood exhausted administrative remedies, then filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 habeas petition asserting due-process violations: insufficient evidence and denial of the right to view the surveillance video (among other procedural claims).
- The district court denied relief; Norwood appealed. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Norwood's Argument | Burge/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether some evidence supported the disciplinary conviction for threatening/intimidating an officer | Burge lied; video and report do not support conviction; character evidence shows he would not threaten | Disciplinary report and hearing-officer’s video description constitute some evidence of pushing door into officer | Affirmed — some evidence supports conviction; standard is minimal (some evidence) |
| Whether inmate must be present to watch surveillance video used as evidence | Norwood argued he was entitled to view the tape and that denial violated due process | Regulation permits hearing officer to review security videotape outside inmate’s presence; summary of tape provided | Affirmed — no due-process right to view facility security videotape; officer’s review and written summary suffice |
| Whether hearing officer improperly relied on officer’s subjective impression that Norwood intended to threaten | Norwood argued the officer’s subjective impression is irrelevant and was improperly considered | State conceded such testimony is not a proper legal factor but argued record doesn’t show reliance and other evidence suffices | Affirmed — even excluding subjective testimony, there was some evidence to support the finding |
| Whether denial of staff assistance, mail delay, or late Secretary filing violated due process | Norwood claimed he needed staff assistance because he couldn’t view the tape; alleged mail delay denied court access; claimed Secretary’s late filing prejudiced him | Norwood participated fully (questioned witness, called witnesses); mail delay unrelated to the disciplinary conviction; late filing did not affect outcome | Affirmed — no due-process violation on these claims; mail-access claim not part of this disciplinary appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (some evidence standard in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due-process protections required in prison disciplinary hearings are limited)
- Rice v. State, 278 Kan. 309 (standard of review for 60-1501 habeas factual findings and substantial evidence)
- May v. Cline, 304 Kan. 671 (review limited to whether any evidence supports hearing officer’s conclusion)
- Frost v. McKune, 44 Kan. App. 2d 661 (application of some-evidence standard)
- Swafford v. McKune, 46 Kan. App. 2d 325 (no right to be present when officer reviews facility security videotape)
- Anderson v. McCune, 23 Kan. App. 2d 803 (meager evidence can satisfy some-evidence standard)
- Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934 (prison security and nondisclosure of surveillance for safety concerns)
- Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841 (discussing risks of disclosing camera locations and surveillance footage)