Giordano v. Dixon
This text of 744 So. 2d 1024 (Giordano v. Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We treat the trial court’s denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus as the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus to restore gain time, reverse same and direct the trial court to instruct the Department of Corrections to (1) vacate and expunge its disciplinary report and (2) restore gain time or conduct another eviden-tiary hearing.
The department’s obligation to produce the cassette tape containing the verbal order appellant was accused of violating, which appellant requested as evidence in his disciplinary hearing for disobeying the order, is substantially the same as its obligation to produce witnesses who may be helpful to appellant. See Williams v. James, 684 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Osterback v. Singletary, 679 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
The present record is devoid of “some” or “a modicum” of evidence, see Dugger v. Grant, 610 So.2d 428, 432 & n. 3 (Fla.1992), on which the department could rely to support its determination that appellant had ever been ordered not to do that which he was accused of doing. On this point alone the trial court erred in not granting appellant’s petition.
[1025]*1025In the event another hearing is held, the Department of Corrections must either produce the cassette tape requested by appellant or show good and valid cause for its failure to do so.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
744 So. 2d 1024, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10574, 1997 WL 578003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giordano-v-dixon-fladistctapp-1997.