Thomas v. Ricks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Ricks

290 A.D.2d 747, 736 N.Y.S.2d 194, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 449

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 747 (Thomas v. Ricks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. Ricks, 290 A.D.2d 747, 736 N.Y.S.2d 194, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

[748]*748Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from participation in unauthorized organizational activity. As set forth in the misbehavior report, two correction officers were moving petitioner’s cellmate to another cell when petitioner began chanting from the recreation pen, “Blood up! Blood up! Blood up!” The officers recognized this as a chant used by members of an unauthorized prison gang known as the “Bloods.” At the disciplinary hearing, the misbehavior report was admitted in evidence as was a videotape from the surveillance camera positioned outside petitioner’s cell. The chanted words can be heard on the tape although their source cannot be determined. The correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified that he had not only heard the words in question, but had observed petitioner saying them. A second correction officer testified that he had received training in unauthorized inmate activities such as prison gangs and he recognized the words as a chant used as a signal by members of the Bloods.

The proof submitted at the hearing was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Marcus v Goord, 287 AD2d 906; Matter of Cornwall v Goord, 284 AD2d 763, 764). Although petitioner’s former cellmate testified that petitioner had remained silent while the chant was uttered by a neighboring inmate, this presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Allah v Selsky, 265 AD2d 824; Matter of Devodier v Selsky, 241 AD2d 737). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

[748]*748Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from participation in unauthorized organizational activity. As set forth in the misbehavior report, two correction officers were moving petitioner’s cellmate to another cell when petitioner began chanting from the recreation pen, “Blood up! Blood up! Blood up!” The officers recognized this as a chant used by members of an unauthorized prison gang known as the “Bloods.” At the disciplinary hearing, the misbehavior report was admitted in evidence as was a videotape from the surveillance camera positioned outside petitioner’s cell. The chanted words can be heard on the tape although their source cannot be determined. The correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified that he had not only heard the words in question, but had observed petitioner saying them. A second correction officer testified that he had received training in unauthorized inmate activities such as prison gangs and he recognized the words as a chant used as a signal by members of the Bloods.

The proof submitted at the hearing was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Marcus v Goord, 287 AD2d 906; Matter of Cornwall v Goord, 284 AD2d 763, 764). Although petitioner’s former cellmate testified that petitioner had remained silent while the chant was uttered by a neighboring inmate, this presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Allah v Selsky, 265 AD2d 824; Matter of Devodier v Selsky, 241 AD2d 737). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 747, 736 N.Y.S.2d 194, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-ricks-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack