Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                      This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 6, 2012
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Diane M. Fremgen                                                                                                                                       petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                                                              Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                       and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                       Cir. Ct. No.   2010CV5047
Appeal No.                                                                           2011AP1831
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                     IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN EX REL. CARLOS ROBLES,
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V.
LARRY JENKINS AND RICK RAEMISCH,
RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
APPEAL  from  an  order  of  the  circuit  court  for  Dane  County:
JOHN W. MARKSON, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Lundsten, P.J., Sherman, J., and Charles P. Dykman, Reserve
Judge.
¶1                                                                                   PER CURIAM.    Carlos Robles appeals from a circuit court order
denying his petition for writ of certiorari, by which Robles sought review of a
prison  disciplinary action.    Because  the  record shows that the  Department of




No.   2011AP1831
Corrections  (the  “department”) followed the applicable regulations and because
substantial evidence supports its decision, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2                                                                                          During all time periods relevant to this case, Robles was an inmate at
Fox Lake Correctional Institution (FLCI) and the Wisconsin Secure Prison Facility
(WSPF).   On February 16, 2010, Robles received an adult conduct report alleging
that he had engaged in gang activity and had possessed contraband, in violation of
WIS. ADMIN. CODE §§ DOC 303.20 and 303.47 (Dec. 2006).1   The conduct report
was filled out by FLCI’s Security Threat Group Coordinator and stated that Robles
was in possession of pictures that showed him wearing a black and gold crucifix
necklace and showed him associating with other inmates affiliated with the Latin
Kings gang.   The Security Threat Group Coordinator explained in the report that
black  and  gold  are  the  colors  of  the  Latin  Kings.    Statements  from  three
confidential informants (CIs) were used to establish Robles’ participation in gang
activity, and Robles was provided with a written summary of those statements.
¶3                                                                                          On  the  same  date  he  received  his  conduct  report,  Robles  also
received a form entitled “Notice of Major Disciplinary Hearing Rights and Waiver
of  Major  Hearing  and  Waiver  of  Time.”    Robles  signed  the  form  next  to  a
statement that said,  “I  certify that I  have read, or had read to me,  and  fully
understand  this  Notice  of  Major  Disciplinary  Hearing  Rights.”    Robles  also
checked a box on the form indicating that he was waiving his rights to a formal
due process hearing.
1  All references to the Wisconsin Administrative Code are to the Dec. 2006 register date
unless otherwise noted.
2




No.   2011AP1831
¶4                                                                                        On  February  18,                                                        2010,  Robles  received  a  disciplinary  hearing
pursuant to WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.67(2).   Robles gave a statement that he
was “not a Latin King” and was not guilty of the alleged violations.   The hearing
officer found the conduct report and the statements from the CIs to be credible and
found Robles’ denial of the accusations not to be credible.   Robles was found
guilty of violating WIS. ADMIN. CODE §§ DOC 303.20(1) and 303.47(2)(a).   He
was  ordered  to                                                                          360  days  of  disciplinary  separation  and  his  photos  were
confiscated.    The  original  decision  issued  by the  hearing  officer  had  another
inmate’s name,  “Pena,” typed into the portion of the form used to explain the
decision.
¶5                                                                                        Robles  appealed  the  decision  to  the  warden  of  FLCI.    Robles
challenged  the  hearing  officer’s  findings  of  guilt  under  WIS.  ADMIN.  CODE
§§ DOC 303.20(1) and 303.47(2)(a).   He also argued that 360 days of disciplinary
separation was a severe measure to impose, given that he had never before been
found guilty of similar offenses.    The warden returned the case to the hearing
officer to remove inmate Pena’s name from the decision form, but concluded that
the evidence supported a finding of guilt and the penalty imposed.
¶6                                                                                        Robles then filed an offender complaint, arguing that the disciplinary
hearing officer did not follow the correct procedure for using CI statements.   He
further argued that inmate Pena, and not Robles, was the person found guilty of
the violations.    The Inmate Complaint Examiner’s Office  (ICE) recommended
dismissal of Robles’ offender complaint.   ICE’s recommendation stated that the
issues  of  whether  Robles  was  a  gang  member  and  whether  he  possessed
contraband were outside the scope of its review, citing WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC
303.76(7)                                                                                 (d),  which  states,                                                     “The  warden’s  decision  is  final  regarding  the
sufficiency of the evidence.   An inmate may appeal procedural errors as provided
3




No.   2011AP1831
under  s.  DOC  310.08(3).”    ICE  also  noted  that  Robles  had  not  raised  any
procedural  issues  on  appeal  and,  thus,  had  not  exhausted  his  administrative
remedies  prior  to  filing  his  offender  complaint,  as  required  by                 § DOC
310.08(2)                                                                                (a).   Finally, ICE concluded that the issue of Pena’s name appearing on
Robles’ hearing decision form had been corrected as ordered by the warden of
FLCI.
¶7                                                                                       On June 21, 2010, the warden accepted ICE’s recommendation and
dismissed Robles’ offender complaint.   Robles then appealed the dismissal of his
offender  complaint  to  the  Corrections  Complaint  Examiner                           (CCE).     CCE
recommended   dismissal   of   Robles’   appeal,   with   modification.                  In   its
recommendation report, CCE noted that the hearing record did not indicate how
the photos confiscated from Robles were “contraband” under WIS. ADMIN. CODE
§ DOC 303.47.   Therefore, the CCE ordered that the case file be returned to the
hearing officer with instructions to include an evaluation of the photos referenced
in the conduct report.
¶8                                                                                       The hearing officer followed the recommendation of CCE by adding
to his disciplinary hearing decision an explanation that the pictures showed Robles
in  possession  of  materials  that  FLCI’s  Security  Threat  Group  Coordinator
identified as being gang-related.   The hearing officer stated that he relied on the
Security Threat Group Coordinator’s experience and knowledge, and found his
statements to be credible.
¶9                                                                                       Robles  then  filed  another  offender  complaint,  challenging  the
WSPF’s decision to place him in a full-time segregation program, as opposed to
half-time.    ICE  again  dismissed  Robles’  complaint,  stating  that  there  is  no
4




No.   2011AP1831
administrative code section requiring that an inmate be allowed to serve only half
his segregation time.
¶10    Robles  again  appealed  ICE’s  decision  to  CCE,  and  CCE  again
recommended  dismissal  of  the  appeal,  concluding  that  WSPF’s  decision
“reasonably and appropriately addressed the issue raised by this inmate” and that
Robles had not presented any information warranting reversal of that decision.
The department’s Office of the Secretary followed CCE’s recommendation and
dismissed Robles’ appeal. Robles then filed a petition for certiorari review in
circuit court.   In an order, the circuit court affirmed the department’s decision.
Robles now appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶11    Robles makes a number of arguments on appeal. He contends that:
(1) the circuit court erred in concluding that Robles was required to exhaust his
administrative remedies and did not do so; (2) the department failed to follow its
own rules and policies; (3) the department improperly destroyed the photographs
that were confiscated from him as contraband;  (4) the circuit court improperly
considered  items  that  were  not part  of  the  administrative  record; and  (5)  the
evidence was insufficient to support the department’s findings of guilt on the
conduct report. We disagree, and affirm.
¶12    On  certiorari  review,  we  review  the  administrative  agency’s
decision, not the decision of the circuit court.    Sprewell v. McCaughtry,  226
Wis. 2d  389,  393,  595  N.W.2d  39  (Ct.  App.  1999).    We  determine  de  novo
whether the department acted within its jurisdiction, whether it acted according to
applicable law, whether the action was arbitrary and unreasonable, and whether
the evidence supported the department’s determination.   Id.   Our scope of review
5




No.   2011AP1831
is identical to that of the circuit court on certiorari.   See Staples v. DHSS, 136
Wis. 2d 487, 493, 402 N.W.2d 369 (Ct. App. 1987).
¶13     Robles argues on appeal that he was not required to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing a writ petition because the Prison Litigation
Reform  Act  is  ambiguous  and  confusing  on  that  issue.    We  disagree.    The
Wisconsin  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  the  Prison  Litigation  Reform  Act’s
exhaustion  of  administrative  remedies  requirement,  codified  at  WIS.  STAT.
§ 801.02(7)(b) (2009-10), is clear on its face in requiring prisoners to exhaust their
administrative remedies prior to bringing an action in circuit court.   Hensley v.
Endicott, 2001 WI 105, ¶1, 245 Wis. 2d 607, 629 N.W.2d 686.   We therefore
reject Robles’ argument that he was not required to exhaust his remedies at the
administrative level.
¶14    Robles also argues that the department did not follow its own rules
and policies in his disciplinary proceedings.   This is a broad procedural issue that
encompasses several sub-issues, none of which were raised in Robles’ appeal to
the warden of FLCI. Specifically, Robles did not raise the following procedural
arguments in his appeal to the warden of FLCI:   that he never received a due
process  hearing,  that  his  hearing  occurred  before  the  two-day  waiting  period
required by WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.75(2), that the CI statements did not
meet the requirements of § DOC 303.86(4), that he did not receive notice of the
charges  against  him,  that  he  waived  his  hearing  rights  unknowingly  and
involuntarily, that the hearing officer was not impartial, and that evidence was
withheld from him.    With the exception of the challenge to the use of the CI
statements, these issues also were not raised in the offender complaint Robles filed
to appeal the warden’s decision.   Since Robles did not exhaust the administrative
remedies available to him in addressing these procedural issues, he cannot now
6




No.   2011AP1831
raise them in this certiorari action, and we need not address their merits.   See
Hensley, 245 Wis. 2d 607, ¶¶10, 22.
¶15    We next examine Robles’ assertion that the contraband photos taken
from  his  cell  were  intentionally  destroyed  to  avoid  judicial  review  of  the
department’s decision on the conduct report.   We begin by noting that the photos
are not in the record.   The department’s certified return to the writ of certiorari
includes a contraband tag that lists “7 pictures,” but the pictures themselves are not
included.   At the bottom of the contraband tag, a box is checked to indicate that
the “[o]ffender may send out on visit/mail” the seven photos.   Other options on the
contraband tag that remain unchecked include destroying the contraband, holding
it in a file, or returning it to the offender.   The department’s certified return does
not include any documentation suggesting whether Robles sent the photos out of
the institution or whether they were ultimately disposed of and, if so, by whom.
Because there is no support in the record for Robles’ assertion that the photos were
intentionally destroyed, we reject that argument.
¶16    We next consider Robles’ argument that the record contains items
that should not have been reviewed by the circuit court.   First, we note that two of
the items of which Robles complains—the affidavits of Welcome Rose and Robert
Bresette—are not part of any original, amended, or supplemental return to the writ
of certiorari, nor were they referenced in the circuit court’s decision.   Bresette’s
affidavit  was  filed  with  the  circuit  court  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  the
department’s motion to submit the CI statements to the circuit court under seal.
Rose’s affidavit was submitted for the purpose of refuting Robles’ claim that a
disputed statement from another inmate was part of the administrative record.
Robles has not persuaded us that these items were in any way relevant to the
court’s decision in this case, nor are they relevant to our decision on appeal.
7




No.   2011AP1831
¶17    We  likewise  are  not  persuaded  by  Robles’  argument  that  the
amended and supplemental returns of the writ of certiorari should be stricken from
the record.   The department is permitted to file amended and supplemental returns.
See Gray v. Common Council of City of Oconomowoc, 104 Wis. 622, 627, 80
N.W.  942  (1899); see also Hoover v. Gagnon,  124 Wis.  2d  135,  145-46,  368
N.W.2d 657 (1985).   We also note that the first amended return was filed after
Robles  filed  a  motion  to  amend  the  record  with  documents  related  to  the
department’s decision not to grant him half-time release from his disciplinary
sentence.   The department filed a response stating that it did not realize Robles
was challenging anything other than his conduct report, and amended the return of
certiorari to include the administrative record pertaining to the denial of Robles’
request for half-time release.   The department later supplemented the record on
two subsequent occasions with copies of FLCI’s institutional rules and procedures
relevant to the case.   Robles has not persuaded us that any of these materials were
not properly included in the amended and supplemental returns.
¶18    Finally,  we  address  Robles’  argument  that  the  evidence  at  his
disciplinary hearing was insufficient for the department to find him guilty of
engagement in gang activity and possession of contraband, in violation of WIS.
ADMIN. CODE §§ DOC 303.20 and 303.47.   In a prison disciplinary proceeding,
the  relevant  inquiry  is  whether  it  is                                            “more  likely than  not”  that  the  accused
committed the violation. WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.76(6)(b).   Any relevant
evidence may be considered, whether or not it would be admissible in a court of
law.   WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.86(2)(a).   When this court reviews a finding
from a prison disciplinary proceeding, we may not substitute our own judgment
for that of the hearing officer, but may only inquire whether substantial evidence
supports the decision.   Von Arx v. Schwarz, 185 Wis. 2d 645, 656, 517 N.W.2d
8




No.   2011AP1831
540 (Ct. App. 1994).   After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the hearing officer’s determination that Robles violated §§ DOC
303.20 and 303.47.
¶19    WISCONSIN ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.20(1) states that an “inmate
who  participates  in  any  group  activity which  is  not  approved  under  s.  DOC
309.365 or is contrary to provisions of this chapter is guilty of an offense.”   The
Latin Kings gang is not an approved inmate group activity.   See WIS. ADMIN.
CODE § DOC 309.365(5)(c).
¶20    The  hearing  officer  considered  three  statements  from  CIs  as
evidence  of  Robles’  participation  in  the  Latin  Kings.    The  CIs’  statements
indicated that Robles “holds the box” for the Latin Kings, that he “is the Kings
Treasurer” and that he is in a “leadership position with the Kings.”   Under WIS.
ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.86(4), the department may use anonymous statements
by different persons to corroborate each other.   Here, the three CI statements all
suggest that Robles was affiliated with the Latin Kings.   In addition, the adult
conduct report indicated that staff observed Robles “associating with and meeting
with  other  inmates  identified  as  being  associated  with  the                          [Latin  Kings]  as
offender Robles was [an] institution barber and regularly at recreation.”   In light of
these  facts  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  there  was  substantial  evidence  to
support the hearing officer’s finding that Robles participated in gang activity in
violation of WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.20(1).
¶21    The other offense of which Robles was found guilty was possession
of contraband.   WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 303.47(2) states that “any inmate who
possesses any of the following is guilty of an offense:                                     (a) Items of a type which
9




No.   2011AP1831
are not allowed.” The FLCI inmate handbook, section 34 subsection E., states that
“[p]hotos of gang signs ... are not permitted.”
¶22    The adult conduct report states that seven photos were confiscated
from Robles’  cell,  and  depicted  him wearing  a  black  and  gold  necklace  and
associating with other inmates affiliated with the Latin Kings.   Robles admitted in
his letter to the FLCI warden on appeal that the photos existed and depicted what
the  adult  conduct  report  said  they  depicted.     The  Security  Threat  Groups
Coordinator stated in the adult conduct report that “black and gold are the colors
used by the Latin Kings to show affiliation.”   The hearing officer relied upon the
coordinator’s experience and knowledge in the area of gang participation, and
found him to credible.
¶23    On  certiorari  review,  we  do  not  weigh  the  evidence  or  decide
questions of credibility; rather, our review is limited to whether there is substantial
evidence to support the department’s decision.   See Van Ermen v. DHSS, 84 Wis.
2d  57,  64,  267  N.W.2d  17  (1978).    Under  this  test,  we  examine  “whether
reasonable  minds  could  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  reached  by  the
administrative tribunal.”   Brookside Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of
Adjustment, 131 Wis. 2d 101, 120, 388 N.W.2d 593 (1986).   We conclude that,
based upon the photos and the contents of the adult conduct report, reasonable
minds  could  conclude  that  Robles  possessed  contraband.    Because  there  is
substantial evidence to support the department’s decision, we affirm.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
                                                                                          This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                                 (b)5 (2009-10).
10

Download 2011ap001831.pdf

Wisconsin Law