Frequently Asked Questions

Q:  I don't get it -- my son was recommended for a commutation of sentence to the governor by the board of executive clemency a few years ago.  The governor denied the recommendation, and my son re-applied again this year.  This time, the board didn't even pass his case along to Phase II for a personal hearing!  How can he be recommended for commutation one year and  not even be given the courtesy of a personal hearing two years later, especially when his prison record remains perfect?  There are many reasons.  First,  you need to understand that each application for clemency begins at "square one."  There is no carry-over "merit" to a case just because it was once recommended in the past.  New board members may consider your son's case each time he applies because board members rotate on and off the board on staggered five-year terms.  Even if the exact same board members consider his case more than once, they are not legally required to vote the same way they did in the past.  That is the nature of "clemency" -- which is an act of grace or compassion by the executive of the government.  We can only speculate, but it might be that the board members felt they were doing your son (and you) a favor by not building up your hopes again, only to have them dashed as they were the previous time.  After all, if the same GOVERNOR denied the recommendation previously, why would he/she grant it a few years later.  Especially a few years later when your son is even closer to his statutorily mandated release from prison, which won't require executive action.    Whether anyone admits it or not, the clemency process is rife with politics and backroom considerations.   Perhaps you are unaware that our Arizona governor is being touted as the next U.S. Attorney General (if Obama wins the Presidency), so she is not going to appear "soft on crime" to anyone and have it come back to haunt her in any type of selection process.   Her board members may or may not take this type of information into consideration when considering candidates for recommendation.  There are just too many factors that are possible and, unfortunately, there is no appeal to the clemency process.  Your son will have to try again in two (2) years, assuming he is still eligible to apply at that time.

Q:  The Department of Corrections has decided to triple-bunk female inmates at the Perryville Prison as a way of dealing with the present overcrowding situation.  Can they legally do so?  The cells are made for two persons.  In a word, yes.  The courts allow prison administrators to do certain things during emergency or crisis situations that, ordinarily, might be considered to be unconstitutional.  If the measure is "temporary," they can generally implement a policy that otherwise would not pass constitutional muster.  So, even though the Department is welding the new beds to the wall of the cell, the policy itself can be temporary as long as the impact on a particular inmate is temporary.  How is this accomlished?  By continuously moving inmates around from cell to cell, and only keeping some inmates in 3-person cells for limited amounts of time.  The PLRA (Prison Litigation Reform Act) requires that in order for a prisoner to have a claim of action, he/she must have suffered actual harm.  Not perceived harm or anticipated harm, but actual harm.  And the harm must be able to be proven to be directly attributible to the condition of confinement (triple bunking) challenged.  This will be extremely difficult for an inmate to prove.  The courts allow prison life to be inconvenient, uncomfortable, annoying, confining,  -- and even crowded, for a time -- as long as the prison (state) is working on a solution.  The legislature HAS funded additional state operated and purchase of private prison beds.  We are sorry to report that triple-bunking is not unconstitutional per se in this case.  We know that we will hear from various inmates about specific or individualized problems associated with this new policy, but -- again -- there is little likelihood that any successful challenges can be made.  If inmates were being required to sleep on a mattress on the floor with their head near the toilet, and this practice went on for the same inmate for an extended amount of time, this would be cause for a court challenge.  In this case, however, inmates will sleep or stay in their triple-bunked cell for relatively brief amounts of the day and be allowed to be out of the crowded cell for many other parts of the day.  This will diminish any claims that any particular inmate may have about the effects of overcrowding.

Q:  My friend is in prison and he told me about a rumor circulating that the legislature passed a law this year (2008) which allows any prisoner who is at least a Level 3 (medium custody) inmate who has already served 50% of his sentence to be released to "Home Arrest" if he/she can pay a $55/month fee to monitor the electronic bracelet.  Is this true?  This is laughable.  First, is your incarcerated friend aware that even under the conservative classification system within the ADOC, even serious sex offenders and those convicted of first-degree murder are eligible -- with good behavior -- to attain a Level 3 (medium custody) classification assignment?  Does he really think that our legislators would pass a law which would allow them an early release?  Next, does he honestly believe that only those persons with enough money to pay the $55/month monitoring fee should be allowed to participate in such a program?  In other words, only people with money can be considered for early release?  Honestly, we can assure you that this RUMOR is exactly that -- a rumor.  And a silly one at that.

Q:  Can the Dept. of Corrections deduct money from an inmate's spendable account that has been sent to him from his family or friends on the outside to pay for court ordered restitution?  In other words, can they deduct money for restitution owed from anything but a prisoner's earned wages?  Previously; no.  Now, a new statute allows them to do so BUT, we believe it may not be possible to override a Judge's Order which says that the restitution is deductible from a prisoner's "wages" only.  Under   A.R.S. 31-230, it now permits the DOC to deduct a minimum of 20%, up to 50% of all monies in a prisoner's spendable account in order to pay court-ordered restitution.  But thousands of prisoners have existing court orders which specify that the court-ordered restitution may be taken from "wages" earned by the prisoner.  We believe the Judge's order "trumps" the legislature's attempt to override the court order.  If you know a prisoner whose restitution order specifies that it can be taken (usually 30% of wages earned by the prisoner), from his account, and if the DOC attempts to decuct 20%  of ALL monies in the spendable account (as of May 11, 2008), he should file a Special Action with the court asking it to refund the illegal deduction.  The only way we can see that the DOC can legally take money from any thing beyond the prisoner's wages is if it petitions the court in each individual inmate's case to apply the new law to his case.  For financial reasons, we don't believe this is feasible. 

This law cannot be challenged for those who are sentenced to a restitution order which incorporates the provisions of the new statute, but that certainly doesn't include the thousands of prisoners already in prison with restitution orders permitting deductions from prison wages (only).

This will more than likely result in much confusion and strife within the prison population.  We have notified the Director and her legal counsel regarding our views on the legality of these deductions.  Restitution is not a "punishment" per se, so these statute changes do not fall under the provisions of ex post facto.  However, our argument is that a court order overrides/overrules a legislative statute.

Q:  Can a prisoner be charged with a felony if he or she has sexual contact with a prison staff member or a correctional custodial (parole or probation officer) person?  Formerly; yes.  Now, no.  In September 2007, A.R.S. 13-1419 was changed and it is no longer a felony for a prisoner to have sexual contact with a custodial (jail, prison or probation) staff member.  Instead, because legislators finally came to the realization that there is never CONSENT between the two parties when the power differential is so great, it is now a felony for the staff member to engage in such behavior, but not a felony for the victim (prisoner or probationer).  This is as it should be.  Prison guards, detention officers, non-uniformed staff and probation officers are expected (required by law) to be professional.  We do not believe this is too much to ask.

Q:  A staff member at the Arizona Dept. of Corrections recently told me that only legal mail (from an attorney) can be sent to a prisoner via certified mail/return receipt requested.  Is that true?  No.  A non-attorney (you) may send certified mail, registered mail or even Fed Ex packages or Western Union telegrams to a prisoner.  However, the item or package is deemed "received" when it is signed for or turned over to prison staff, and not when it is delivered or given to the prisoner.  So, don't expect special treatment of a piece of mail or a package that is sent to a prisoner in this manner.  Instead, if you use this method, use it only as a way to CONFIRM that the package or letter was actually received by someone (whose name is usually illegible -- on purpose) in the mail room of the prison.  An "overnight" package that you pay for will only be delieverd to the prison over night, but it still make take a few days to get it in the hands of the intended prisoner.

Q:  The Maricopa County Jail System requires that citizens must communicate with a prisoner on postcards only.  I recently wrote my incarcerated girlfriend a sexually explicit postcard, but the jail refused to deliver it, claiming it interferes with the "secure and orderly operation" of the jail.  Don't I have a First Amendment Right to write to my girlfriend about our personal sex life?  She has a six month sentence!   Yes and no.  It depends on just how explicit your message to your girlfriend was.  Jail officials could claim that the message itself was offensive to whatever mailroom staff were required to read it, or they could claim that if another prisoner read the postcard, it could cause problems inside the jail relating to security, etc.  So, there probably are some circumstances where a court would uphold the jail's decision to ban your message.   However, a general discussion of your desire for sexual relations with your girlfriend would probably not rise to the level of a breach in security or a threat to the orderly operation of the jail.  Unfortunately, since jail officials will be unlikely to back down from their stance, this is an issue that you would very likely have to resolve in a court of law.  It would be expensive and time-consuming, and would become moot once your girlfriend is released in six months.  Perhaps you may want to consider using more of your imagination, and encouraging your girlfriend to do likewise.

Q:  Do the families of prisoners receive any tax deductions from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) for the expenses they incur when a family member/loved one is in prison, such as for telephone calls, travel expenses, etc.?  No, there is no provision in state or federal tax law for deductions related to the expense of having a family member in prison, jail or on probation.  Payment of court-ordered criminal restitution is not tax deductible.  Expenses for travel to and from a prison or jail; hotel/motel costs for overnight stays in a distant location near a prison; meals; collect telephone calls are not deductible in any legal manner.

Q:  My husband told me he heard some prison staff talking about establishing a conjugal visiting program in Arizona. Are Arizona's prisons going to be setting up conjugal visits for prisoners and their spouses?  In a word: No.  This is a rumor, pure and simple.  There isn't a legislator, governor or prison director in this state brave enough to propose that prisoners' be given time, space, resources or anything else to facilitate having sexual relations at the prison (or anywhere else).  Sorry, this is wishful thinking by prisoners or it might be "playing head games" with prisoners by prison staff.

Q:  My husband recently told me (January 2008) that the prison has announced they will begin charging $1.29 to each prisoner who misses a meal in the "chow" hall or who refuses to accept a meal taken to his cell.  Can they do that?  No, the prison has no statutory authority to charge prisoners for meals.    We obtained a copy of the memo that was posted on inmate bulletin boards which gave this information, but we also contacted the Legal Counsel for the ADOC to ask on what statutory authority the DOC was relying to justify charging any prisoners for food -- missed special meals or not.  The response was that while the memo had been "issued", the department was not going to "enforce or implement" it.  We asked when a memo would be distributed which informs prisoners that the policy is not in effect, but have not received a response.  Again, there is presently no statutory authority under Arizona law to charge prisoners -- even for special meals that are missed -- by deducting from their inmate account.

Q:  Prisons are severely overcrowded and the budget in Arizona is stretched to the max.  Doesn't that mean there is a good chance that the legislature will reduce prison sentences and let a lot of prisoners out of prison early?  No, it does not.  It means that legislators are going to seek ways to balance the state budget, but they will not do it by drastically altering the criminal code, including for non-violent / non-dangerous offenders -- especially for those already convicted and serving time in prison.  Every year a rumor circulates that the criminal code will be reduced from 85% to 65%, but no bill has EVER been introduced which proposes to do this.   In order to save money on prison costs, the Department will cut prisoner wage scales, reduce the number of hours that prisoners work, cut other services and do everything they can to cut costs without affecting staff salaries or administrative salaries, etc.  In other words, no serious proposals are on the table for reducing prison sentences or dramatically altering the present criminal code.

Q:  On December 21, 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger submitted a proposal which calls for the early release from prison of about 22,000 offenders.  Does this proposal have any effect for Arizona's prison population?  No.  First, the Gov. of California, just like the Gov. of Arizona, has no legal authority to reduce the already-imposed sentences of convicted offenders without going through the official executive clemency process.  Therefore, Schwarzenegger has only made a proposal to his Legislature.  The bill will be debated in the House and Senate of the California legislature, just as all legislative bills are debated.  Whether anyone is actually given an early release will depend entirely upon whether the proposal passes into law.  Schwarzenegger proposes to release about 22,000 non-dangerous, non-violent offenders who are within 20 months of their already-existing release date.   His proposal also includes getting rid of 4,000 prison jobs, most of whom would be prison guards.  The prison guard union in California, a very powerful lobbying organization, will surely tap dance around a way to oppose this proposal without appearing as though they are against saving money for the State of California (prison guard salaries in California's prisons begin at $70,000/year)  In Arizona, we have far fewer inmates who would fall into the category on non-dangerous/non-violent and within 20 months of already-existing release, but a similar proposal by our Governor or by any Legislator who ultimately could get a similar bill passed through the Arizona legislature would have the same goal of saving money by reducing prisoners (and prison staff).  At the present time, we don't know of any legislator who is planning to make such a proposal to fellow legislators during the upcoming 2008 legislative session.  Due to the governor's political ambitions after she leaves her office as governor, we seriously doubt that she would make such a proposal (fearing to look "soft on crime" nor do we think she would sign/authorize such a bill if it came to her desk (fearing to appear "soft on crime").  It is clear that Gov. Napolitano has political ambitions which include the possibility of landing in the Cabinet of the President if a Democrat is elected in 2009.  She has not endorsed any Democrat in the primaries, which demonstrates that she is leaving open her options to be "available" to any Democratic who may win the presidential election . . . Hence, we don't see any possibility of her following in Gov. Schwarzenegger's footsteps on this issue.  

Q:  Now that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has passed the "crack" amendment and made it retroactive, will it automatically apply to all FEDERAL crack cocaine offenders sentenced before 11/1/07?  No.  Only the sentencing court will decide whether the amendment applies to a prisoner and whether the prisoner will get a sentence reduction.  To apply for or obtain a sentence reduction, the FEDERAL prisoner must make a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582 (c) (2) to the court that sentenced that offender.  It is unknown at this time if the court will appoint attorneys to represent such applicants, but it is likely that they will have to do so.  THIS SENTENCE REDUCTION  POSSIBILITY APPLIES ONLY TO FEDERALLY-SENTENCED PRISONERS WHO WERE CONVICTED OF A CRACK COCAINE OFFENSE.  THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RETROACTIVITY IS MARCH 3, 2008, BECAUSE THE COURTS AND THE PROBATION OFFICERS NEED THIS TIME TO PREPARE TO PROCESS THE CASES.

Q:  How much of a time reduction can be expected now that the crack amendment has been made retroactive?

Sentences could be reduced by an average of 27 months for approximately 19,000+ federal prisoners sentenced before 11/1/07.  Individual sentence reductions will vary, however, and can be shorter or longer than 27 months, depending on the original crack cocaine sentence imposed and how much the court decides to reduce any particular offender's sentence.   Black men have been disproportionately affected by the harsher crack cocaine guidelines, so they will be affected in greater numbers than other racial or ethnic groups. 

Q:  Does the crack amendment change the mandatory minimum  federal sentences for crack crimes?  No.  The mandatory minimum sentence for a federal crime involving at least five (5) grams of crack will remain five years.  The mandatory minimum sentence for a crime involving at least ten (10) grams of crack will remain 10 years.  Only Congress can change these mandatory minimum sentences.

Q:  Who will NOT get the benefit of the retroactive crack amendment?  Those sentenced under the federal career offender guideline (4B1.1), or the armed career offender guideline (4B1.4), and those serving only the five-year or ten-year mandatory minimum (i.e. they did not benefit from the safety valve or a downward departure for substantial assistance) CANNON benefit from the amendment.  Also, those with base offense levels of less than 12 or greater than 43 and those whose offense(s) involved more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine will not be eligible to receive a sentence reduction.

Q:  How Can A Federal Prisoner Get Help?   To find out whether a case fits the criteria and obtain assistance with a sentence reduction motion, the prisoner should contact the trial or appellate attorney who represented him/her.  If the attorney is not able to help, the prisoner should write to the FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE in the district in which the prisoner was convicted and explain that the prisoner is unrepresented and wishes to seek a sentence reduction motion.  No formal ruling has been made about whether prisoners are entitled to appointed counsel for these motions, but we believe that such a ruling is forthcoming.  All of the Federal Public Defender's offices are aware that the guideline has been made retroactive, effective March 3, 2008, and will likely be prepared to help.

Q:  Does the crack amendment do anything to reduce federal sentences for meth offenders?  No, unless the crime involved meth AND crack, and the sentence was calculated for meth AND crack.

Q:  Do state prisoners who were sentenced in states where there is a similar disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine have the same benefits available as federal prisoners?  No, not unless that state that has jurisdiction over the prisoner passes a law which retroactively permits application for sentence reductions and/or reduces the sentences and makes the reductions retroactive.  In Arizona, this would require legislative action and the governor's signature.

Q:  Who are the members of the Board of Executive Clemency and how are they chosen for appointment?    The current members are: Duane Belcher, Chairman (who is chosen as chairman by the Governor);, Olivia Meza, Tad Roberts, Marian Yim, and the newest member, Ellen Stensen. All members of the board are appointed by the governor for five-year staggered terms.  The governor is also permitted by Arizona law to select one of the members of the five-member panel as chairman.  The board is a "sole and separate" agency and is not under the control or influence of the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Q: My mother died and I wanted to go to her funeral, but the DOC wouldn't let me. Don't I have the right to attend a funeral of a close family?

A: You have no constitutional right on this issue. The DOC has a policy which permits an inmate to attend a funeral or have a bedside visit of an immediate family member who is dying. But they can require your family to pay for transportation costs, extra prison guards to escort you, and limit the transportation to in-state immediate family. If you are not in a position to pay and if your family member cannot pay the money up-front, they will sometimes make an agreement with the inmate to allow him to work off the debt with a prison job. However, you do not have a constitutional right to any of these privileges. The only thing that would implicate a constitutional right is if the DOC established a policy that stated, "Only Mexican American inmates will be permitted to attend family funerals . . ." The Department can discriminate by crime category or for security reasons-- such as not permitting anyone on death row to have funeral privileges -- but they may not discriminate by race, sex, etc. The Department's policy is fairly restrictive in that a death bed visit may only be utilized if the dying relative is in a hospital or institutional hospice care. If the dying person is in HOME hospice care, the inmate will not be taken to that location for a death-bed visit.

Q: I have a hernia and can't seem to get an operation; can I file a lawsuit for medical malpractice or for a violation of my 8th amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment?

A: Prisoners are entitled to the "community standard of care," when it comes to health services for their SERIOUS medical needs. Prison officials, according to established case law, may not be "deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs." So, for someone with diabetes, a heart condition, cancer, etc., the ADOC must provide the same treatment and service that would be available to any indigent person in the community if the person were not in prison. Doctors vary in their treatment of hernia problems; some like to operate immediately, while some try to treat it using pain management and other methods, such as truss support. The community standard of care is what is required. Just because a prisoner desires surgery, he/she is not entitled to it. However, if the pain is unbearable or if the method being used to control the pain is not working, a prisoner needs to carefully and continuously document in writing to the health care department at the prison the FACTS of his case and the fact that the current method of treatment is not working. Complaining to family and friends is not the same as filling out HNR (Health Needs Request) forms and submitting them according to policy. Prisoners can send copies of such forms outside the prison, but they MUST document their heath needs requests completely according to policy. The point is to build a "paper trail" of proof that the prisoner attempted to obtain health services via the policies established.

Q: Are conjugal visits permitted in Arizona's prisons?

A: No, they are not permitted, nor have they been in the past. Arizona does have a "temporary release" statute which formerly was used to permit a "home furlough" program. This allowed well-behaved inmates to go home -- sometimes for periods up to 72 hours at a time -- to visit family. Only immediate family members could qualify to participate in a home furlough program. Now, the Department of Corrections no longer operates this program due to political backlash against programs in other states that resulted in new crimes by the furloughed inmate. Arizona's program operated for many years (in the 1980's) and was successful in keeping prisoners in touch with their community and with their family, but the rehabilitative ideal is(today) merely lip-service within the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Q: My judge issued an order recommending that I receive mental health treatment while in prison; aren't they obligated to give it to me? Also, I know of another prisoner whose judge recommended that he be sent to a minimum custody prison unit, but they keep him in a Level 3 yard. Aren't they (the DOC) obligated to put him in minimum custody since the judge recommended it?

A: Once the sentencing judge pronounces sentence, the court loses "jurisdiction" over the prisoner. Now, he/she is a ward of the state -- and belongs to ADOC or the county jail, depending upon where he was sentenced to serve time. A recommendation is just that -- a recommendation.   The prison or jail system is not bound by law to follow it. Supposedly, both prison and jail officials give "extra weight" to such recommendations, but their definition of "treatment" may be different from what a judge had in mind. The bottom line is this: there is no constitutional right to rehabilitation or to treatment (except medical treatment for serious medical needs). Therefore, if the DOC doesn't provide it, they are not in violation of a right. The same goes for custody levels and unit security classifications. Much case law exists which states that prisoners have no right to a particular custody level or classification. The only thing that is not permitted is to punish a prisoner with higher custody levels because, perhaps, of his race, his religion, etc.


Q: My husband has the chance to turn himself in for a prison sentence which will begin in 30 days. Is there something he can do while he is still out to prepare for a five-year sentence?

A: Yes; first, he should see his family doctor and get up-to-the-minute prescriptions on any illnesses he has. He won't be able to bring the prescriptions with him into prison, but he should also have his doctor sign a letter which details each and every medical condition he has (serious ones, especially) and what the consequences will be if those medical conditions are left untreated. Your husband should take a copy of this letter with him to prison when he turns himself in, and you should forward a copy of it BY REGISTERED, CERTIFIED MAIL to the Administrator of Health Services, ADOC, 1601 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. That way, the ADOC can't claim that they were unaware of his serious medical needs.

In addition, your husband should see his eye doctor, if applicable, and get an updated set of glasses, including sunglasses. You should, if you can afford to, obtain a duplicate pair of glasses -- and this is important -- in the same exact frame, so that if he breaks them or damages them in any manner, they can easily be exchanged during visitation. The frames must be all plastic, including the stems.  This is not an invitation to introduce contraband into the institution, but we are realistic about how long it takes for the DOC to serve the vision needs of prisoners.

Finally, he should see his dentist immediately and have a thorough cleaning and take care of any potential problems that even look like they might crop up during the next five years. There is virtually NO preventive dental care of any type within the prison system.  All fillings, crowns, etc. should be taken care of prior to entering prison.

If applicable, the prisoner should obtain an updated hearing aid, or any other medical device which he has been using while in the community  Do not expect the Department of Corrections to timely provide such devices, or to provide new ones.

If the prisoner in question were female, we would also advise a Pap smear and mammogram, as these tests are not available to female prisoners unless a problem has already been identified (a lump, discharge, etc.). Unfortunately, preventive health care is not realistically available within the prison system.

In addition to the above medical issues, we would strongly advise that he make a Will; execute a Power of Attorney for financial affairs; notify the supervising court (if applicable) of any child support issues (prisoners are not automatically forgiven child support payments while in prison; they must notify the court of changed financial circumstances and request  IN WRITING a reduction in the court-ordered amount of support). For female prisoners who are custodial parents of a child or children, we suggest making arrangements for child care and custody with a trusted family member or working closely with Child Protective Services for arrangements during foster care. Obtain accurate addresses and phone numbers of the ten (10) persons you will wish to list on visitation/telephone list forms for future contact. Social security numbers are NOT required to be provided for your visitors to obtain visitation/telephone contact approval, and we recommend that the social security number not be provided to DOC.

Purchase a very inexpensive watch ($25 value or less) and make sure that a wedding ring, if applicable, is not flashy or expensive. On the day of sentencing, whatever amount of cash you have in your pocket will be taken from you but added to your inmate/prisoner account.  We recommed no more than $250.  This can be used to purchase basic supplies, stamps, etc.  However, we strongly recommend that NO ONE enter the prison system and immediately begin spending large sums of money on a TV, extra food stuffs, extra clothing, etc.  If you do, you (and your family) will be "advertising" yourselves as people with money -- at least to most other prisoners, some of whom have nothing -- and setting yourself up to be a target for extortion and other threats or intimidation.  

Do not borrow anything or lend anything in prison.  Go without.  Cheerfully.  Don't volunteer information.  Listen and watch.  Don't be the center of attention.   If someone asks to "see your paperwork" (which consists of your sentencing documents showing the actual crime you are convicted of), tell them, "I am perfectly happy to show you my paperwork, but only if you show me yours."  (Do not volunteer to do this if you are a high profile inmate; a child molester, etc.)  

If you are fortunate enough to have advance time to prepare for your entry to the prison syste and want to speak to James and Donna Hamm, please call for a consultation.  Many have done so and have benefitted from the information.  480 966-8116.

Q: My cell mate has filed about four PCR Petitions, but I was told by my lawyer that I can only file one, and it must be done within 90 days after sentencing. Why the difference?

A: If your cell mate was sentenced PRIOR to September 29, 1992, he/she is entitled to file more than one PCR (Post Conviction Relief) Petition, as long as the new petition does not attempt to re-hash issues that have already been adjudicated. If sentenced after 9/29/92, a defendant has 90-days in which to file a NOTICE of PCR. The actual PCR document does not have to be filed until all the transcripts are obtained, etc., but it is imperative that the Notice (of intent to file) Rule 32 is filed within 90-days of sentencing. In some cases, an exception can be made and sometimes -- if there is newly discovered evidence which would have affected the outcome of the proceedings AND if that evidence was completely unavailable to the defendant at the time he/she filed his initial PCR, then a second PCR could be filed by those who were sentenced after 9/29/92.

Q:  My husband was convicted of a disciplinary write-up in prison, but has filed an appeal.  How can the prison impose the punishment -- loss of privileges --  if the appeals process has not been completed?'

For the same reason that they can send someone to prison to begin serving a prison sentence, even if the person intends to file an appeal.  The law permits them to do it.  Only the very rich and well-connected people -- Martha Stewart, for example, are given permission to suspend imposition of the sentence pending outcome of an appeal.

Generally speaking, when an inmate loses privileges as a result of a disciplinary violation, it means that he/she has been convicted of a "minor" rule infraction.  "Major" rule infractions carry much more serious penalties, including forfeiture of earned release credit days and placement in Parole Class III (which means that the inmate does not earn any new release credits during the time he/she is assigned to Parole Class III).  In either case, prison authorities are permitted to impose the sanction.  If, on the very rare occasion that an appeal results in overturning the conviction, the punishment included re-classification to higher custody or forfeiture of ERC's, the prison is required to restore an inmate to his former classification score (but not to his former living unit) and to restore the forfeited ERC days, but any other "privileges," (such as commissary, TV, phone calls, etc. -- which are not constitutional rights) are not considered serious enough to have the courts worry about them. 

Q:  My son is in prison and has been denied a Commutation of Sentence.  Now, he wants to apply for a Pardon.  Can he do that?  What are his chances?

We know of no instance in the history of Arizona where a sitting governor has granted a pardon to someone currently in prison.  None. Period.  A pardon cannot be granted by the governor on his/her own.  Instead, it must be recommended to the governor by the Board of Executive Clemency.  The Board doesn't grant pardons; they can only recommend them to the governor.  It works this way because it is designed as a 'check and balance' system to avoid political pay-offs to governors (which has happened in other states where this check and balance system did not exist). 

A pardon absolves the convicted person of all consequences of a criminal conviction.  They are very rarely granted.  In our opinion, if the governor denied a commutation of sentence, the likelihood of granting a pardon is nil.  Pardons are generally granted to persons who have fully expired their sentences, have been out of prison for quite a large number of years, and have made extraordinary strides to redeem themselves and their lives in the community.  Pardons are a part of the executive clemency powers that are granted to the governor via the Arizona Constitution.  They are an "act of grace" by the executive (governor) and, technically, override the courts (judicial branch of government).  They are a rare bird, indeed (except by former President Clinton on his last day in office!).

Q:  In 1999, Middle Ground provided a service to prisoners which included the sale of packets of information and/or forms which could be mailed to the prison.  Do you still provide that service?   No.  Due to difficulties that arose shortly after offering this service, we were forced to stop.  We simply could not stock enough of the various forms to make it feasible for providing them on a timely basis to everyone who requested them.  We terminated this service in early 2000.  All ADOC checks that were not been cashed within the allowable time limit (within 6 months) should have been reimbursed to the individual inmate account.  We are not responsible for unsolicited attempts to utilize the Form List/Order Form which was in effect only in 1999.