Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dawson v. Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections
Citations: 345 P.3d 969; 2014 COA 69; 2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 838; 2014 WL 2149404Docket: Court of Appeals No. 13CA1023
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals; May 22, 2014; Colorado; State Appellate Court
James R. Dawson, Jr., an inmate, appeals the district court's affirmation of his disciplinary conviction for unauthorized possession of contraband under the Colorado Department of Corrections' (DOC) Code of Penal Discipline. In September 2012, while assisting another inmate with legal matters, Dawson possessed the inmate's legal papers without the inmate being present, leading to the charge. The hearing officer found Dawson guilty, determining that the papers were contraband due to his unauthorized possession. This conviction was upheld during administrative review and subsequently challenged by Dawson in district court under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), which also affirmed the decision. Dawson argues that his actions did not violate the disciplinary code. The appellate court reviews the district court's ruling de novo, examining whether prison officials exceeded their jurisdiction or abused their discretion, particularly through misinterpretation of the law. A disciplinary decision must be upheld if supported by some evidence. According to DOC regulations, an inmate commits unauthorized possession if they have any item deemed contraband, which includes items not specifically authorized for possession. While inmates can possess another's legal documents, they must do so under specified conditions: all involved inmates must be present and documents must be returned to their owner before separation. Evidence indicated Dawson was outside the law library and not with the other inmate when he possessed the papers, supporting the hearing officer's conclusion of unauthorized possession. Dawson's argument regarding misinterpretation of the Code of Penal Discipline is rejected. The Code defines contraband broadly as any item not specifically authorized for possession. The hearing officer correctly determined that Dawson's possession of another inmate's legal documents constituted contraband. Dawson claimed an exception allowing inmates to possess reading materials; however, this exception only applies to items that have been altered or misused, not to the entire contraband definition. Furthermore, specific regulations regarding the possession of another inmate's legal papers take precedence over the general reading materials exception. Dawson's unauthorized possession occurred in a context requiring the other inmate's presence, violating the Code. Dawson's reliance on *Tebbetts v. Whitson* is misplaced, as that case was based on outdated regulations that did not restrict possession of another inmate's legal documents. Moreover, *Phillips* is also not applicable since the disciplinary offense in question is no longer part of the current Code. The district court's upholding of Dawson's disciplinary conviction is thus deemed proper, and the judgment is affirmed.