Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

369 So. 2d 110

Lightfoot v. Wainwright

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-04-04

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1981

3 state decisions

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Kirby v. Blackledge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-04-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Lightfoot appeals a denial, without hearing, of his Petition for Habeas Corpus. The only allegation which requires discussion is his claim that he was not given a written statement as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action. If this is true, appellant’s due process rights were denied. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-565, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Kirby v. Blackledge, 530 F.2d 583, 585 (4th Cir. 1976). The failure to give appellant such a statement also violates Florida Administrative Rule 33-3.08(13)(m). The documents comprising the record below do not refute this allegation. Therefore, this cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of the allegation.

MILLS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
/369/so2d/110 · .json · Public domain