criminal contempt is a crime under Alabama law.” (quoting C.J. v. State, 552 So.2d 182, 184 h. 2 (Ala.Crim.App.1989))). Thus, an attorney would not be subject to a mandatory sanction for a criminal contempt, but would be subject to a sanction only if he or she had been separately prosecuted and convicted for a violation of § 13A-10-130(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. Finally, Tipler argues that he was not accorded his due-process rights to fair notice and the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way. We agree with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals’ holding that the .“record reflects that [Tipler’s hearing before the Disciplinary Board] was extensive and broad ranging” and that the hearing “conformed with the requirements ... in Huckaby v. Alabama State Bar, 631 So.2d 855, 857 (Ala.1993)” (<HOLDING>). At the hearing before the Disciplinary Board,
holding that a student has a right to counsel in a university disciplinary hearing where there is a pending criminal charge for the same incident but noting that the attorneys role at the disciplinary hearing is limited to safeguarding the students rights at the criminal proceeding and not to affecting the outcome of the disciplinary hearing holding that where the conviction was final the disciplinary commission was not authorized to assume the roles of both an accusatory tribunal and the ultimate determiner of guilt and that the separation of responsibility between the disciplinary board and the disciplinary commission provides constitutional due process holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record holding an inmate has a due process right to 1 advance written notice of the disciplinary charges 2an opportunity to call witness and present evidence and 3 a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action holding that a prison disciplinary committee violated inmates rights to procedural due process by refusing to call their witnesses even though the disciplinary hearing took place in the aftermath of a riot and the resulting disciplinary caseload was ex tremely heavy