In a unanimous unpublished opinion Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed its prior ruling that David Omar Adams could not argue he was being punished twice after spending years in solitary confinement, then being sentenced for the August 2018 attack.
Adams had been placed in solitary by the state's department of corrections for 20 days as an administrative punishment, then reclassified in light of the attack and other incidents. This wasn't a criminal remedy, according to the appellate ruling.
"We conclude that the actual punishment imposed on defendant through the [Michigan Department of Corrections] regulations is not relevant to whether he was subjected to multiple criminal punishments for the same crime," the judges said.
Though Adams' punishment may have been harsh, "there are other legal avenues available to redress harm caused when a civil punishment is excessively administered against an individual," the panel determined, citing the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Seling v. Young.
After Adams attacked a guard, he ended up spending a total of three years, nine months and two days in solitary confinement while awaiting trial and reclassification, the court noted.
He was charged in 2019 but his trial "experienced lengthy delays because of stipulations between the parties," as well as due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the panel explained. Adams also stayed in solitary confinement because the only prison that could house him didn't have single cells as part of their general population facility, according to the ruling.
The judges also said Adams wasn't challenging the reasons for his lengthy isolation, but rather arguing that the hardship caused by the isolation caused the punishment to be criminal in nature.
Jessica Zimbelman, who represents Adams, said in an email that he would be appealing the panel's decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.
"The Court of Appeals' decision holding that the nearly four years that Mr. Adams spent in solitary confinement is not punishment is disappointing and in contrast to the testimony gathered in the Ionia County Circuit Court in June, and in contrast to decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court about when a sanction is punishment," Zimbelman said.
"Being isolated from other human beings, with no access to programming or human contact beyond being handcuffed, for four years is the very definition of punishment," she added.
Adams behaved well while in solitary confinement, Zimbelman said, and "regardless of his past behavior, solitary confinement is excessively punitive."
In its prior opinion, the appeals court said Adams' confinement "was not so punitive in purpose or effect to transform it into a criminal penalty," and the court reiterated that holding, after being forced to reconsider the case by the state's highest court.
"The undisputed evidence is that the reclassification was necessary for the physical safety of staff and other inmates," the court said, further elaborating that Adams' attack on the guard was part of a "long history of targeting and assaulting prison staff and other inmates."
In Adams' filing, he did not discuss the validity of the laws used to sentence and confine him nor did he address his double jeopardy argument, the panel said. Instead, he focused on the damaging impact of long-term solitary confinement, according to the decision.
"When it comes to addressing a double jeopardy clause question, i.e., whether the effects of a civil punishment are so excessive to be punitive and thereby criminal in nature, we must only consider the regulation on its face. Having done so … we continue to hold that the double jeopardy clause did not preclude the state from prosecuting defendant for conduct that previously resulted in internal MDOC administrative punishment," the judges found.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments Wednesday.
Judges Thomas C. Cameron, Christopher M. Murray and Michael F. Gadola sat on the panel.
The state is represented by Eric Restuccia and Jasmine Davis of the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Ionia County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
Adams is represented by Jessica L. Zimbelman of the Michigan State Appellate Defender Office.
The case is People of the State of Michigan v. Adams, case number 359017, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
--Editing by Covey Son.
Update: This article has been updated with comments from Adams' attorney.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
