Personal Restraint Petition Of Matthew Ray Douglas Schley
197 Wash. App. 862
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Matthew Schley pleaded guilty to first-degree theft and second-degree burglary and received concurrent DOSA sentences requiring in-prison treatment and community custody.
- Schley entered DOC chemical dependency treatment; an incident where he allegedly fought another inmate led to a prison disciplinary (infraction) finding based on the "some evidence" standard and 15 days' segregation.
- The infraction finding resulted in administrative termination from the treatment program under DOC rules, which triggered a DOSA revocation process.
- At the DOSA revocation hearing the Department relied on the prior termination (not re-proving the fight) and revoked Schley’s DOSA, requiring him to serve the remaining sentence in custody.
- Schley petitioned for relief, arguing (1) revocation required proof of the underlying fighting allegation by a preponderance of the evidence, (2) he was not properly informed of the right to request counsel, and (3) multiple sanctions exceeded Department authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for DOSA revocation based on misconduct | Schley: DOSA revocation requires the fighting allegation be proved by a preponderance; using a prior "some evidence" infraction deprived him of due process | Dept.: Prior infraction findings need not be re‑decided with a higher burden at the DOSA hearing (citing Gronquist) | Court: Where an infraction finding necessarily results in DOSA revocation, the underlying factual basis must be proved by a preponderance; using "some evidence" denied Schley due process; petition granted |
| Right to counsel at DOSA revocation hearing | Schley: Dept. failed to inform him he could request counsel; he would have requested counsel and the Dept. must consider appointment case-by-case | Dept.: Schley never requested counsel; thus no duty to decide appointment; the issue was not complex so counsel unnecessary | Court: Dept. failed to adequately notify; Schley entitled to a new hearing where he will be told he may request counsel and the Dept. will decide appointment as appropriate |
| Whether DOC exceeded authority by imposing multiple sanctions for one incident | Schley: DOC imposed three sanctions (segregation, treatment termination, DOSA revocation) for a single fighting incident in violation of WAC limiting multiple sanctions | Dept.: Sanctions stemmed from distinct consequences (disciplinary, custody change, program termination) and are within authority | Court: DOC acted within its statutory/regulatory authority; sanctions arose from distinct incidents/consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of McKay, 127 Wn. App. 165 (DOSA revocation requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Grantham, 168 Wn.2d 204 (prison disciplinary proceedings use "some evidence" standard)
- Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388 (limits on relitigating prior minor infractions in serious-infraction hearings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process protections for parole revocation hearings inform revocation procedures generally)
- Grisby v. Herzog, 190 Wn. App. 786 (due process requires consideration of right to counsel in community-custody violation hearings)
- In re Pers. Restraint of McNeal, 99 Wn. App. 617 (discussing due process protections in revocation contexts)