Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loyd v. Fabian

July 13, 2004

EDDIE DEE LOYD, PETITIONER, RESPONDENT,
v.
JOAN FABIAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS.



Rice County District Court. File No. C4031167.

Considered and decided by Klaphake , Presiding Judge; Schumacher , Judge; and Stoneburner , Judge.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

The district court's scope of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited to constitutional and jurisdictional challenges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert H. Schumacher, Judge

Reversed

PRIVATE

OPINION

Commissioner of Corrections Joan Fabian and warden Connie Roehrich appeal from a district court order denying respondent Eddie Dee Loyd's petition for writ of habeas corpus but ordering that his period of extended incarceration be limited to 30 days pursuant to a contract signed by Loyd prior to his entering a drug-treatment program. Fabian and Roehrich argue that the document signed by Loyd is not an enforceable contract. We reverse.

FACTS

In February 1999, Loyd pleaded guilty to felony drive-by shooting in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.66, subd. 1(e) (1998). He was sentenced to 126 months in prison. While incarcerated, Loyd completed an alcohol and drug assessment, which recommended that he be placed in a drug-treatment program. Loyd was informed that the recommended treatment was mandatory, and if he failed to participate he would receive an extended incarceration period. Minn. Stat. 244.03,.05, subd. 1b(b) (2000), provide that the Commissioner of Corrections may discipline inmates with extended incarceration for violating disciplinary rules or refusing to participate in rehabilitative programming.

In August 2001, prior to entering a drug-treatment program, Loyd signed a document with the title"Minnesota Correctional Facility Lino Lakes, TRIAD CENTER, PROGRAM CONTRACT." Above Loyd's signature, the document contained the following statement:"I have received and understand the orientation manual. I agree to abide by all Institutional policies and rules. I agree to abide by all TRIAD Center rules now in effect or which, from time to time, may be amended." A TRIAD staff member also signed the document.

Offender Disciplinary Regulation 510 provides a penalty of extended incarceration for inmates who fail to complete mandated treatment. At the time Loyd signed the"program contract" and entered the TRIAD program, an inmate's first violation of Regulation 510 resulted in 30 days of extended incarceration if the inmate pleaded guilty. Seven days after Loyd entered TRIAD, all inmates received a memorandum explaining a new penalty structure for Regulation 510. Under the new policy, which became effective September 17, 2001, an inmate's first violation would generally result in 90 days of extended incarceration.

In November 2001, the TRIAD program placed Loyd on probation for lack of progress, lack of effort, and unwillingness to work with the treatment process. Approximately two weeks later, Loyd was"terminated" from the program for lack of progress, poor motivation, and being argumentative with peers and staff. Thereafter, he received notice of violating Regulation 510 based on his termination from the TRIAD program. Loyd waived his right to a hearing, admitted violating Regulation 510, and received a punishment of 90 days of extended incarceration.

Loyd filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, Loyd argued the 90 days of extended incarceration should be rescinded because the treatment program violated his constitutional rights because the program required him to read and write and he was illiterate. In the alternative, Loyd argued that 60 of the 90 days of extended incarceration should be returned because ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.