Bryan R. Hanley v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board - Dissenting

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: November 30, 2016
• Docket: M2016-01223-COA-R3-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 4, 2016

BRYAN R. HANLEY v. TURNEY CENTER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hickman County No. 15-CV-5637 Joseph Woodruff, Chancellor ___________________________________

No. M2016-01223-COA-R3-CV – Filed November 30, 2016 ___________________________________

RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding. As the majority notes, a charge against an inmate be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, defined at TDOC Policy No. 502.01(IV)(I) as “[t]he degree of proof which best accords with reason and probability and is more probable than not.” As the majority also notes, the evidence upon which Mr. Hanley’s conviction rested consisted of the two knives and Corporal Story’s statement, the salient portion of which is quoted in the majority opinion. Corporal Story did not testify and the only live witnesses were Mr. Hanley, who denied that the knives were his, and Duane Brooks, an inmate who testified in support of Mr. Hanley’s contention that the knives were left by a previous occupant of the cell.

Because I believe that the proof falls short of the standard mandated by the TDOC policy, I would grant Mr. Hanley relief.

_________________________________ RICHARD H. DINKINS, JUDGE