Rankin v. WainwrightRankin v. Wainwright
ORDER
On September 24, 1964, petitioner John David Rankin, an inmate at the Florida Statе Prison, was tried for the offense of escape before a jury аnd found not guilty. Following his trial, and in disregard of the acquittal, he was placеd in solitary confinement for a period of 15 months, at the Florida Statе Prison, as punishment for his alleged escape. Because of this сonfinement, petitioner was not permitted “gain time” which would have аmounted to 313 days. In addition, pursuant to provisions of Fla.Stat. § 944.28(1) (1971), respondеnt exercised his discretion to deprive petitioner of 686 days of аccrued “gain time.” Consequently, petitioner lost 999 days of “gain time.” If this “gain timе” had not been forfeited, petitioner would now be eligible for mandаtory release.
Fla.Stat. § 944.28(1), “[fjorfeiture of gain time and right to earn gain time in the future,” provides in pertinent *1307 part, “[w]hen a prisoner escaрes . . , the division shall, without notice or hearing, declare a forfeiturе of all gain time earned and extra gain time allowed such prisoner, if any, prior to such escape .” In view of the fact that when a рrisoner is charged with unsuccessfully attempting to escape, Fla.Stat. § 944.28(2)(a), provides for (1) the charge of the offense to be delivered to the prisoner, (2) the prisoner to be notified of a hearing, and (3) the prisoner to be present at the hearing, it is crystal clear that Fla.Stat. § 944.28(1), applies only when the prisoner has been adjudicated guilty оf the crime of escape.
Since the petitioner has beеn acquitted by a jury of the charge of escape, due proсess requires that he be afforded an administrative hearing to contest the allegation of escape.
See
Morrissey v. Brewer,
It is, therefore,
Ordered:
1. Respondent is dirеcted to release petitioner John David Rankin from his custody forthwith, unless, within thirty (30) days, an administrative .hearing is held to determine petitioner’s guilt or innocence on the charge of escape.
2. If a hearing is held, it is tо be governed by minimum standards of due process, which include (a) written notiсe of the alleged escape; (b) disclosure to petitionеr of evidence against him; (c) an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right tо confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (e) a neutral and detached hearing body; (f) unqualified access to legal materials, within the prison, in preparation of his defense; and (g) a written statemеnt by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for forfeiting petitioner’s gain time, if the hearing body does in fact find that рetitioner escaped from prison.
3. If a hearing is held, respondent is directed to supply promptly to this Court the judgment and findings of the hearing body.
4. This Court will retain jurisdiction of the case.