Ricky James Bedell v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections
2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 83
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Ricky James Bedell, convicted of aiding and abetting third-degree assault, was serving a sentence and had a direct appeal pending.
- Before his notice of appeal was filed (but while appeal period was active), prison staff interviewed Bedell for the New Dimensions chemical-dependency program; he declined to sign the pre-entry agreement.
- At a disciplinary hearing, Captain Starkson allegedly told Bedell the program would require discussion of his current offense; Bedell said he would not discuss the offense while his appeal was pending.
- The hearing officer treated Bedell’s refusal to sign as refusal to participate and imposed 45 days’ extended incarceration; the warden affirmed.
- Bedell petitioned for habeas relief claiming the sanction violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination; the district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- On expedited appeal, the court found the record supported that Bedell reasonably believed New Dimensions would require him to discuss his conviction while his appeal was pending and reversed, ordering recalculation of his supervised-release date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extending incarceration for refusing to sign New Dimensions pre-entry agreement violated Fifth Amendment | Bedell: he refused because program required admitting/discussing his crime while appeal pending, creating substantial and real risk of self-incrimination | Commissioner: Johnson v. Fabian limited to sex-offender programs; chemical-dependency treatment here is confidential and does not compel incriminating statements | Court: Record supports Bedell’s belief he would be required to discuss his offense; Fifth Amendment protection applied and sanction violated Bedell’s rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Fabian, 735 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 2007) (holding extension of supervised release can be compelled and addressing privilege where inmate refused to admit/discuss crimes in sex-offender program)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (Fifth Amendment privilege covers official questioning where answers might incriminate in future proceedings)
- Carrillo v. Fabian, 701 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 2005) ("some evidence" standard for reviewing prison disciplinary actions)