Facts: Petitioner James Grantham, an inmate at McNeil Island Corrections Center, was sanctioned with disciplinary segregation and a loss of good behavior credit after an internal disciplinary hearing in which it was determined that he had attempted to smuggle tobacco and marijuana into the facility. Grantham subsequently filed a personal restraint petition in the Superior Court for Pierce County challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against him and the fairness of the process relied upon by the disciplinary board. The trial court dismissed Grantham’s petition, ruling that Grantham was required to make a prima facie showing of a constitutional error resulting in actual prejudice or of a non-constitutional error resulting in a total miscarriage of justice and that Grantham had not met this threshold. Grantham appealed the trial court’s ruling regarding the applicable standard of review to the Washington Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Grantham subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): What is the applicable standard of review in cases involving personal restraint petitions that have not previously been subject to judicial review?

Did Grantham meet this standard of review?

Conclusion: Justice Chambers’ opinion for the Court held that while prisoners facing disciplinary proceedings are not entitled to the full panoply of constitutional rights accorded defendants facing criminal charges and while the need to impose prison discipline swiftly and finally to maintain order made a higher standard of review than that applied in reviewing other types of administrative proceedings appropriate, Grantham was not required to make a prima facie showing of a constitutional error resulting in actual prejudice or of a non-constitutional error resulting in a total miscarriage of justice but rather simply needed to demonstrate that he was denied a fundamentally fair proceeding in a manner that worked to his prejudice. However, the Court concluded that as Grantham had been informed of the charges against him and given the opportunity to defend himself, there was nothing to suggest that he had been denied a fundamentally fair proceeding.

Docket No. 82194-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 37396-3)

Petitioner: James Grantham

(Counsel: David L. Donnan and Nancy P. Collins)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Peter William Berney and Jay Douglas Geck)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, February 4th, 2010

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 7-2

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)

Alexander
(Dissent)

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Chambers
(Majority)

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens