Hardy v. Douglas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hardy v. Douglas

719 So. 2d 947, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12267, 1998 WL 654097

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1998

DocketNo. 98-693

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 719 So. 2d 947 (Hardy v. Douglas) 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.

Bluebook

Hardy v. Douglas, 719 So. 2d 947, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12267, 1998 WL 654097 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

Hardy is serving three consecutive one-year terms in the Putnam County Jail. Prior to committing a disciplinary offense, Hardy was a jail trusty and earned jail credit for that service. Upon being found guilty of a disciplinary violation, he was removed as trusty. He reapplied to become a trusty after serving his disciplinary penalty and he was rejected because he had previously been “revoked” as trusty. Hardy claims that since this policy of not permitting one who has been removed as trusty to be restored to that capacity was implemented after his sentence began, he has been denied his constitutional rights because “it enhances his prison sentence.” The trial court rejected his claim and so do we.

Once Hardy was found guilty of disciplinary violations, he was removed as trusty. While he could reapply after completing his punishment, he had no right, constitutional or otherwise, to be reappointed. His status at that point was the same as other inmates who sought to become trusty. He was bound by the rules then in effect. These rules now provide that once you are removed as trusty for disciplinary reasons, you will not be reappointed. These rules, applicable to everyone, should also be applicable to Hardy. He was not removed from his trusty status because of a rule change, he was removed because he broke the rules of the institution.

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HARRIS, Judge.

Hardy is serving three consecutive one-year terms in the Putnam County Jail. Prior to committing a disciplinary offense, Hardy was a jail trusty and earned jail credit for that service. Upon being found guilty of a disciplinary violation, he was removed as trusty. He reapplied to become a trusty after serving his disciplinary penalty and he was rejected because he had previously been “revoked” as trusty. Hardy claims that since this policy of not permitting one who has been removed as trusty to be restored to that capacity was implemented after his sentence began, he has been denied his constitutional rights because “it enhances his prison sentence.” The trial court rejected his claim and so do we.

Once Hardy was found guilty of disciplinary violations, he was removed as trusty. While he could reapply after completing his punishment, he had no right, constitutional or otherwise, to be reappointed. His status at that point was the same as other inmates who sought to become trusty. He was bound by the rules then in effect. These rules now provide that once you are removed as trusty for disciplinary reasons, you will not be reappointed. These rules, applicable to everyone, should also be applicable to Hardy. He was not removed from his trusty status because of a rule change, he was removed because he broke the rules of the institution.

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 So. 2d 947, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12267, 1998 WL 654097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-douglas-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack