People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison, 43 N.Y.2d 786 (1977)
An inmate cannot be disciplined for violating a prison rule unless a copy of that rule has been provided to them, regardless of whether the inmate should have otherwise known the conduct was prohibited.
Summary
Menechino, a prison inmate, sought a new parole release hearing, alleging several procedural errors. Special Term found that two of three disciplinary violations used to deny parole were erroneously relied upon and that his criminal history score was miscalculated. However, the court did not order a new parole hearing. The Court of Appeals held that disciplinary violations should not have been considered because Menechino had not received a copy of the institutional rules, as required by the Correction Law. The court modified the order to direct the expunction of the disciplinary violations from Menechino’s record and correction of his criminal history score.
Facts
Menechino, an inmate at Green Haven State Prison, was denied parole. He claimed errors in the parole board’s procedure, specifically regarding disciplinary violations considered against him and the calculation of his criminal history score. One disciplinary violation was for stealing, and Menechino argued he never received a copy of the prison rules and regulations.
Procedural History
Menechino filed a petition in Special Term seeking a new parole release hearing. Special Term agreed that two disciplinary violations were erroneously relied upon and his criminal history score was incorrect but did not order a new hearing. The judgment dismissed the petition without directing expunction or correction of the record. Menechino appealed to the Appellate Division, who affirmed. Menechino then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an inmate can be disciplined for conduct that violates a prison rule, when the inmate has not been provided with a copy of the rule, regardless of the fact that the inmate should have known the conduct was prohibited?
Holding
No, because the Correction Law specifically requires that an inmate receive a copy of the rules before being disciplined for violating them.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that Special Term erred in determining that the board could consider discipline for stealing, even though Menechino had not received a copy of the institutional rules and regulations at the time of the incident. The lower court reasoned that because Menechino was convicted of robbery, he should have known that stealing was forbidden. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that while this reasoning might be sufficient for prosecution under the Penal Law, it did not meet the specific requirements of subdivision 5 of section 138 of the Correction Law. This section states that “No inmate shall be disciplined except for a violation of a published or posted rule or regulation, a copy of which has been provided the inmate” (emphasis supplied by the court). The court emphasized the specificity of the requirement, indicating that an inmate’s knowledge of the Penal Law does not supersede the need for providing them with a copy of the prison rules. As such, the court concluded that none of the three disciplinary violations should have been considered.
The court further noted that Special Term erred by not including directions for expunction and correction in its judgment. The court stated, “In the face of that specific requirement petitioner’s knowledge of the Penal Law furnished no basis for discipline.”