cell occupied by Bostic and two other inmates. Appellant seeks to attack disciplinary action taken against him for making, possessing, or using intoxicants on the ground that his guilty plea was involuntary. Appellant alleges that the hearing officers were aware that he pled guilty to the violation, of which he was innocent, only because he was under extreme stress due to threats made against him by his co-defendants (his two cell mates). The district court dismissed. In a criminal trial, a guilty plea must be the voluntary expression of the defendant’s own choice. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 14 nd these procedural protections to proceedings less formal than state and federal criminal trials. United States v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293, 1296-99 (9th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the IDC was not constitutionally
recognizing right of allocution in probation revocation proceedings holding hearsay admissible in revocation hearings holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings holding that neither rule 11 nor the protections of boykin apply to probation revocation hearings and observing that less process is due in prison disciplinary proceedings than in probation revocation hearings holding that the general rules of preservation apply in probation revocation proceedings