DAVID W. WILLIAMS v. JUSTICE CABINET, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MEREDITH, ADJUSTMENT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
December 24, 1997; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NO. 96-CA-2828-MR
DAVID W. WILLIAMS
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DENNIS A. FRITZ, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-400
v.
JUSTICE CABINET,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
and LIEUTENANT WILLIAM D.
MEREDITH, ADJUSTMENT
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
APPELLEES1
OPINION
AFFIRMING
* * *
BEFORE:
KNOPF, MILLER, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
SCHRODER, JUDGE:
David W. Williams, an inmate, appeals pro se
from a judgment dismissing his petition for a declaratory
judgment.
No brief was filed on behalf of the appellees.
In
reviewing the record and the appellant's brief, we find no error
and hence, affirm.
1
Appellant's notice of appeal listed the attorney for the
Department of Corrections and the Chairman of the Adjustment
Committee. Rather than dismiss this appeal, we corrected the
caption.
David W. Williams (Williams) is an inmate at the Luther
Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky.
On July 3,
1996, a search of Williams' cell produced legal papers belonging
to sixteen different inmates.
An investigation was completed on
July 26, 1996 at 3:06 p.m. by Lt. Larry Voirol, who gave a copy
to Williams, together with a notice of a hearing before the
adjustment committee.
Williams did not waive his 24-hour notice
of a hearing, but the hearing was continued to July 30, 1996.
Williams was charged with "loan sharking" and for
"charging for legal services" but was only found guilty of
charging for legal services.
His conviction was based partly on
a tip by a confidential informant.
Williams was sentenced to 60
days of disciplinary segregation, suspended for 180 days, plus
forfeiture of 60 days of good time.
A warden's appeal affirmed
the adjustment committee's recommendation.
Williams appealed to
the circuit court, which dismissed his appeal and denied a motion
to reconsider.
On appeal to this Court, Williams argues three points:
improper use of the confidential informant's information; failure
to waive a twenty-four hour advance notice of the hearing; and
lack of evidence to convict of the loan sharking.
The first argument is that the information received
from the confidential informant was inadequate and that Williams
was not able to confront or examine the informant on information
within the report, which should require a reversal.
We disagree.
Due to the obvious risks involved to the confidential informant,
2
his identity does not have to be revealed.
Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed 935 (1974); Hensley v.
Wilson, 850 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1988); Gilhaus v.Wilson, Ky. App.,
734 S.W.2d 808 (1987).
According to Gilhaus, supra, the
verification of the confidential information does not need to be
comprehensive, but the committee must include some reference to
verification.
This was done in this case because the findings
were based upon past reliability and corroboration of the
information.
Williams' second argument is that he did not sign a
waiver of the twenty-four hour written notice of the hearing
before the adjustment committee.
Inmates are entitled to a
twenty-four hour written notice of disciplinary charges according
to Wolff v. McDonnell, supra.
The written notice in this case
was given to Williams on July 26, 1996 (a Friday afternoon), and
his hearing was not held until August 1, 1996 (Tuesday), thus
there was no need to waive the notice requirement.
Inmates are
given that option only when it may be possible to have the
hearing within twenty-four hours.
Therefore, Williams'
procedural rights were not violated.
Finally, the last argument, that the committee had
insufficient evidence to convict him of loan sharking or debt
collection, is without merit.
The adjustment committee
apparently agreed and found him not guilty of this charge.
This
issue obviously was not discussed in circuit court and we wonder
why the appellant is asking us to review a favorable ruling.
3
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Oldham
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
4
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEES
David W. Williams, Pro Se
LaGrange, Kentucky
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
