Munn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Munn v. State

694 So. 2d 93, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4879, 1997 WL 222365

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 1997

DocketNo. 96-406

StatusPublished

This text of 694 So. 2d 93 (Munn v. State) 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

Munn v. State, 694 So. 2d 93, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4879, 1997 WL 222365 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus, by which he contested disciplinary action taken by the Department of Corrections (the department). The appellant is a prison inmate who was disciplined for shaving his head, and the disciplinary team found this to be a violation of the institution’s barber shop rule. After the appellant petitioned for mandamus the department acknowledged that the barber shop rule should not have been applied to an inmate who shaved his own head, but the department asserted that the appellant was nevertheless properly disciplined because another institutional rule precluded the appellant from shaving his head. Although the court accepted the department’s position in denying relief, in his pleadings below the appellant described evidence which he attempted to present at the disciplinary hearing and which was not allowed because it was not pertinent to a violation of the barber shop rule. Because this evidence addresses the enforcement of the rule upon which the department now relies, this change in the basis of the discipline adversely impacts the appellant’s due process rights. The appealed [94]*94order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded.

WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus, by which he contested disciplinary action taken by the Department of Corrections (the department). The appellant is a prison inmate who was disciplined for shaving his head, and the disciplinary team found this to be a violation of the institution’s barber shop rule. After the appellant petitioned for mandamus the department acknowledged that the barber shop rule should not have been applied to an inmate who shaved his own head, but the department asserted that the appellant was nevertheless properly disciplined because another institutional rule precluded the appellant from shaving his head. Although the court accepted the department’s position in denying relief, in his pleadings below the appellant described evidence which he attempted to present at the disciplinary hearing and which was not allowed because it was not pertinent to a violation of the barber shop rule. Because this evidence addresses the enforcement of the rule upon which the department now relies, this change in the basis of the discipline adversely impacts the appellant’s due process rights. The appealed [94]*94order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded.

WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 So. 2d 93, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4879, 1997 WL 222365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munn-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.