Prison Hobby Shop Surcharge Upheld By California Court
Prison Hobby Shop Surcharge Upheld By California Court
A California appellate court has upheld a ten percent surcharge imposed on the sale of prison inmates' hobby craft items, overturning a superior court order which held it to be unconstitutional.
The case started when a prisoner at San Quentin, Bernard Hamilton, challenged a department of corrections practice of forcing prisoners to add ten percent to the sale of their hobby craft items. Those funds are then deposited into the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) which, in turn, is used to help pay for the hobby shop program.
In his superior court petition, Hamilton argued that since the ten percent surcharge was not specifically authorized by the Legislature, it "is not authorized and thus unlawful."
After a hearing on his habeas petition, the superior court agreed and vacated the surcharge. Daniel Vasquez, then-warden at San Quentin, appealed the order.
Vasquez asked the appellate court to reverse the superior court, arguing that the "plain language of sections 5005, 5006 and 2813, makes it clear that the Legislature intended" the hobby craft program "be as self-supporting as possible." Vasquez further argued that as such, the director of prisons had broad discretionary power in fixing the prices of items sold" through prison programs.
"The fact that the Legislature did not fix a specified amount that could be deducted for retention by the prison illustrates the breadth of discretion given to the prison in determining what revenues are needed to maintain the handicraft program," Vasquez argued.
Relying on "our interpretation of the pertinent statutes and dicta [from] In re van Geldern. 5 Cal 3d 832, 837," the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District of California found the surcharge both authorized and justified.
The court cited testimony of San Quentin handicraft manager Larry Heer, who stated that money from sales of the hobby items went to the IWF and paid for things such as maintenance of the hobby shop, equipment, postage for prisoners' orders, and fairs and exhibitions at which prisoner items are sold.
Hamilton's petition for rehearing was denied, as was his application for review to the California Supreme Court.
See: In re Bernard Hamilton on Habeas Corpus, Case No. A065255 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist., Div. 2, 1996).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
In re Bernard Hamilton on Habeas Corpus
| Year | 1996 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Case No. A065255 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist., Div. 2, 1996) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |