imposition of disciplinary segregation on him for misconduct. The defendant in that case argued that he had a right to present witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, and that denial of this amounted to a due process violation. The Sandin court specifically rejected the defendant’s due process argument on the grounds that having the disciplinary matter on the defendant’s prison record would not adversely affect his parole prospects: “Nor does Conner’s situation present a case where the State’s action will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence. Nothing in Hawaii’s code requires the parole board to deny parole in the face of a misconduct record or to grant parole in its absence, even though misconduct is by regulation a relevant consideration. The d , 537 P.2d 888 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Bennett v. Ridley, 633 A.2d 824
holding that denial of a prerevocation parole violation hearing harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases