Assault of a prison employee; MCL 750.197c; Double jeopardy; People v Ream; Principle that prison disciplinary proceedings are administrative & do not invoke double jeopardy; People v Wyngaard; Whether the statutory scheme was so punitive as to transform a civil remedy into a criminal penalty; People v Hudson; Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) policy directive 03.03.105A

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him on the basis of double jeopardy. He was convicted of assault of a prison employee for repeatedly stabbing a corrections officer with a plastic ink pen, causing significant injuries. Before trial, he moved to dismiss the charge on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that he had previously been administratively sanctioned by the MDOC for the same assault. The trial court denied his motion. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that because he was already sanctioned by the MDOC, double jeopardy applied and his motion to dismiss should have been granted. “[T]he intent in providing punishment for violation of prison policies is to provide a civil punishment, as the punishment is primarily for discipline and other recognized administrative benefits of the penal institution.” And, considering the relevant Hudson factors, “the administrative punishment authorized by the policy did not transform the civil remedy into a criminal punishment.” As such, “the double jeopardy protections afforded by the state and federal constitutions were not implicated when the state brought criminal charges against defendant based upon the same conduct resulting in his prior administrative confinement. There was not the ‘clearest proof’ that the administrative punishment defendant received under MDOC policies was criminal.” Affirmed.