DAVID RHODES v. LT. JULIE PHILLIPS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: May 23, 2003; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2002-CA-002142-MR
DAVID RHODES
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DARREN W. PECKLER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CI-00248
LT. JULIE PHILLIPS
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BAKER, GUIDUGLI AND PAISLEY, JUDGES.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE. David Rhodes (hereinafter “Rhodes”) appeals pro
se from the order denying his petition for declaration of
rights.
We affirm.
On March 11, 2002, Rhodes filed his petition for
declaration of rights in the Franklin Circuit Court.
In that he
was an inmate at the Northpoint Training Center located in
Burgin, Kentucky, the case was transferred to the Boyle Circuit
Court on June 11, 2002.
Thereafter, in September, 2002, the
Boyle Circuit Court entered an order denying the petition.
This
appeal followed.
In that Rhodes raises the same issues on appeal as he
did before the Boyle Circuit Court, and Judge Darren W. Pecker’s
order thoroughly addresses these issues, we adopt his order as
follows:
This matter is before the Court on Petition
for Declaratory Judgment. This Court,
having reviewed the Petition, attachments,
and all relevant precedent, hereby DENIES
Petitioner’s request for declaratory
judgment.
Petitioner makes several claims that he
argues created deprivations of due process
rights. These claims are: 1) no signature
on the chain of custody form when specimen
received from courier; 2) no signature next
to checks for “intact upon receipt; 3) faxed
test results were not attached to
disciplinary report; 4) signature of
laboratory tester was illegible; 5) test
results do not show which laboratory
actually did the testing; 6) the test
results were not signed by the certifying
scientist; 7) there was an unreasonable
delay between the test results and the
disciplinary report; 8) the test results
don’t show what substance was tested for; 9)
the adjudicative officer did not consider
Diersen Center’s drug policy. As relief;
Petitioner requests that the Court enter a
declaratory judgment that his due process
rights were violated by the above claims,
order restoration of good-time credits,
award punitive damages of $5000 per
respondent, compensatory damages of $5000
per respondent, and court costs.
When a prisoner files a request for
declaratory judgment to the Circuit Court,
-2-
this request invokes the Court’s ability to
act as a court of review. Smith v. O’Dea,
Ky.App., 939 S.W.2d 353 (1997). The Court
will limit its review of the decision to
discipline a prisoner to whether some
evidence in the record supports the finding,
and whether the prisoner received notice of
the charges, a reasonable opportunity to be
heard, and a brief written explanation of
the adjudicative officer’s decision. Id. at
357.
The Northpoint Training Center
(hereinafter NTC) Adjudicative Officers
cannot find a prisoner guilty of
unauthorized drug use solely on the basis of
a urinalysis test with a flawed chain of
custody. This is a violation of the “some
evidence” standard of review this Court uses
to review the decision of NTC Adjudicative
Officers.
However, the chain of custody in this
case was not flawed, so Petitioner’s loss of
good-time credits was not a violation of due
process. The Kentucky Court of Appeals held
in Byerly v. Ashley, Ky.App., 825 S.W.2d 286
(1991) that “chain of custody” is not
complete unless it at least indicates “who
received the sample, that the specimen seal
was then intact, and who had handled the
specimen through the time it was tested.
The record documents a clean chain of
custody from the time that Petitioner signed
the form on November 6, 2001 until the test
was certified and released by Trudi Osborne
on November 8, 2001. The “custody and
control form” used by Diersen Center and
Advanced Toxicology Network (hereinafter
ATN) leave no doubt that the sample was
received intact at the ATN on November 7,
2001. The “Internal Custody/Control form”
includes the signatures of each person at
the lab who handled the sample and clearly
shows that the test was performed at ANT’s
facility in Memphis, TN.
-3-
Petitioner’s other allegations do not
rise to the level of due process violations.
Clearly the adjudicative officer in this
case did not make an arbitrary decision to
punish Petitioner. The decision was based
on a urine test with a chain of custody
clean enough to meet the standard of Byerly
v. Ashley, Ky.App., 825 S.W.2d 286 (1991).
For the above-stated reasons, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Petitioner’s petition for declaratory
judgment is DENIED. This order if FINAL and
APPEALABLE.
Done this 4th day of September, 2002.
Judicial review of an administrative action is
concerned with the question of arbitrariness.
The court is to
insure that the administrative hearing complied with the
following three grounds:
(1) whether the agency acted in
exercise of its statutory powers; (2) whether procedural due
process was complied with; and (3) whether substantial evidence
was taken to support the decision reached.
See American Beauty
Homes Corp. v. Louisville, etc., Ky., 379 S.W.2d 450 (1964).
Having reviewed the record, the trial court order and Rhodes’s
argument on appeal (appellee, Lt. Julie Phillips, did not file
an appellate brief), we find no error in Judge Peckler’s review
of the prison disciplinary action and belief Rhodes received all
due process to which he was entitled.
For the foregoing reasons, the order entered by the
Boyle Circuit Court is affirmed.
-4-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT, PRO SE:
NO BRIEF FILED FOR APPELLEE
David Rhodes
Burgin, KY
-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.
