Lightfoot v. Wainwright

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lightfoot v. Wainwright

369 So. 2d 110, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14734

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 1979

DocketNo. MM-174

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 369 So. 2d 110 (Lightfoot v. Wainwright) 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

Lightfoot v. Wainwright, 369 So. 2d 110, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14734 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lightfoot 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lightfoot 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 So. 2d 110, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lightfoot-v-wainwright-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack