{
  "id": 8554706,
  "name": "JERRY W. GOBLE v. V. LEE BOUNDS, Director of North Carolina Department of Correction",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goble v. Bounds",
  "decision_date": "1972-02-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 7217SC34",
  "first_page": "579",
  "last_page": "583",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 579"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 50",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572609
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 901",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 711",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576913
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0711-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574818
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0135-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 436,
    "char_count": 8388,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.127104216344454e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5072411557585017
    },
    "sha256": "63f279a7e5ec766cb90deb021bdc16c9e9ed59ccd18fb1ba99aeaa48ead7be00",
    "simhash": "1:2bbb6534cfef6d7d",
    "word_count": 1322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JERRY W. GOBLE v. V. LEE BOUNDS, Director of North Carolina Department of Correction"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nPlaintiff-appellant brings forward one assignment of error based on four exceptions to the. Judgment of Judge Long filed 14 July 1971. The plaintiff\u2019s assignment of error is that the Superior Court committed reversible error in ordering the dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s action for an injunction. We do not agree.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s first exception was addressed to the Court\u2019s conclusion and finding \u201c . . . that prison records of inmates are confidential and are not subject to inspection by the public nor the inmate concerned; and that the Plaintiff\u2019s allegations fail to allege a violation of his rights.\u201d As we construe G.S. 148-74 and G.S. 148-76 the trial court was correct. G.S. 148-74 states the administration of the Records Section is under the control and direction of the Director of Probation, the Commissioner of Correction, and the chairman of the Board of Paroles, and G.S. 148-76 states the information collected shall be made available to law-enforcement agencies, courts, correctional agencies, or other officials requiring criminal identification, crime statistics, and other information respecting crimes and criminals. These records are confidential and only named parties have access to them.\nPlaintiff further contends that defendant\u2019s denial to plaintiff of the right to examine the contents of his personal prison file and to offer commentary on the contents of the file is arbitrary, irrational, and capricious conduct, which has the effect of depriving plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Federal and North Carolina Constitutions. We agree with the trial court in its conclusion \u201c . . . that the plaintiff, upon being considered for honor grade status or work release, is not entitled, either under the State or Federal Constitutions, to procedural due process rights . . . . \u201d\nG.S. 148-13 provides that the rules and regulations for the government of the State prison system may contain provisions relating to grades of prisoners, rewards and privileges applicable to the several classifications of inmates as an inducement to good conduct. In reference to G.S. 148-13, our court has stated that the prison rules and regulations respecting rewards and privileges for good conduct are strictly administrative and not judicial. The giving or withholding of the rewards and privileges under these rules promulgated by the State Department of Correction is not a matter with which the courts are authorized to deal. State v. McCall, 273 N.C. 135, 159 S.E. 2d 316 (1968) ; State v. Garris, 265 N.C. 711, 144 S.E. 2d 901 (1965). In other words, the award of \u201chonor grade status\u201d is a discretionary act of the State Department of Correction, and its decisions relating to such awards are not subject to procedural due process.\nG.S. 148-33.1 provides for the \u201cwork release privilege\u201d to eligible prison inmates. G.S. 148-33.1 (a) states \u201c(w)henever a person is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years to be served in the State prison system, the presiding judge of the sentencing court may recommend to the State Department of Correction that the prisoner be granted the option of serving the sentence under the work release plan . . . . \u201d Clearly, G.S. 148-33.1 authorizes but does not require the presiding judge of the sentencing court to recommend that the prisoner be granted the privilege of the Work Eelease Program. The granting of the privilege is within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Wright, 272 N.C. 264, 158 S.E. 2d 50 (1967).\nG.S. 148-33.1 (b) authorizes but does not require the Board of Paroles of this State to authorize the State Department of Correction to grant work release privileges to any inmate of the State prison system provided that the stated conditions in the statute are met.\nWe hold that the decisions of the trial court and the State Board of Paroles relating to the \u201cwork release privilege\u201d are discretionary acts and are not subject to procedural due process.\nWe conclude that honor grade status, work release privilege, and parole are discretionary acts of grace or clemency extended by the State as a reward for good behavior, conferring no vested rights upon the convicted person. In our judicial system, an accused person must be given full constitutional protection before and during his trial, but procedures of constitutional dimension are not appropriate in subsequent determinations of rewards for good behavior while serving a validly imposed sentence of confinement. The purpose of our correctional institution is to aid the convicted person and to rehabilitate him; therefore, we reject plaintiff\u2019s contentions which would create meaningless technicalities and, thus, impair and hinder the purpose of our correctional system when no substantive rights are involved.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith and Patterson, by Norman B. Smith and Michael K. Curtis, for plaintiff.",
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Jacob L. Safron, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JERRY W. GOBLE v. V. LEE BOUNDS, Director of North Carolina Department of Correction\nNo. 7217SC34\n(Filed 23 February 1972)\n1. Convicts and Prisoners \u00a7 2\u2014 prison records \u2014 confidential\nPrison records are confidential and are not subject to inspection by the public or by the inmate involved. G.S. 148-74; G.S. 148-76.\n2. Convicts and Prisoners \u00a7 2\u2014 prison records \u2014 inspection by inmate\nA prison inmate\u2019s constitutional rights are not violated by refusal of the Department of Correction to allow him to examine the contents of his prison file and to offer commentary on items which may adversely affect his opportunities for honor grade status, work release or parole.\n3. Convicts and Prisoners \u00a7 2\u2014 honor grade \u2014 discretion of Department of Correction\nThe award of \u201chonor grade status\u201d to a prison inmate is a discretionary act of the State Department of Correction, and its decisions relating to such awards are not subject to procedural due process.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 138; Convicts and Prisoners \u00a7 2\u2014 work release \u2014 discretion of court and Board of Paroles\nDecisions of the trial court and the State Board of Paroles relating to the \u201cwork release privilege\u201d are discretionary acts and are not subject to procedural due process.\nAppeal by plaintiff from an Order entered by Long, Judge, 14 July 1971, following a hearing in chambers by consent.\nJerry W. Goble, the plaintiff-appellant in this case, is a North Carolina resident and is incarcerated in the Blanch Prison unit in Caswell County, North Carolina. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that his personal prison record contains a letter from Douglas Albright, Solicitor of the Twelfth Solicitorial District, who represented the State in plaintiff\u2019s criminal trial. It is further alleged that the said letter contains allegations which are derogatory of plaintiff and are highly damaging to his reputation; that the allegations must be false and plaintiff desires the opportunity to know the contents of said letter and desires to explain, deny, and rebut all parts of said letter which he might find to be inaccurate; that the allegations made in said letter have adversely affected his opportunities for earning hon- or grade status, work release, or parole. The complaint further states that the defendant, V. Lee Bounds, Director of North Carolina Department of Correction, and his agents and servants have failed and refused to permit the plaintiff the opportunity to review this letter, consider its accuracy and offer any commentary on the letter that he might desire; that the defendant consistently denies prisoners the right to examine the contents of their personal files maintained by the North Carolina Department of Correction; that the general practice of defendant and the specific denial by defendant to plaintiff of the right to review the letter is arbitrary, irrational, and capricious conduct by defendant, which has the effect of depriving plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the North Carolina Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff requested that the complaint be treated as an affidavit and motion in support of injunctive relief.\nDefendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it had failed to state a. claim upon which relief could be granted. Judge Long granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed.\nSmith and Patterson, by Norman B. Smith and Michael K. Curtis, for plaintiff.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Jacob L. Safron, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0579-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 607
}