ORDERS:
ORDER
Grievance No. KER 644-08
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance
concerning his disciplinary conviction for Exhibitionism and Public Masturbation,
854 under SCDC Inmate Disciplinary System Policy OP-22.14. He contends that the
conviction should be overturned because he was not given due process. Based
upon the record presented in this appeal, I find that the Department’s decision
to deny Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
This
appeal is before this Court pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C.
354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), and Slezak v. South
Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004). Appellant
contends that his Exhibitionism and Public Masturbation conviction should be
overturned because his conviction was not supported by the evidence, and that he
did not receive due process of law. In response to Appellant’s grievance, the
Department determined that the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing
sufficiently supported his conviction; that the hearing was conducted in
compliance with procedural requirements; and that the punishment imposed—loss
of ninety (90) days good time; loss of five hundred and forty (540) days canteen
and phone privileges; three hundred and sixty (360) days disciplinary
detention; and loss of contact visitation for one (1) year—was appropriate for
the offense.
DISCUSSION
Due Process
The
Record reveals that Appellant was afforded all the required due process in
prison disciplinary cases: (1) Notice of the Charges (Exhibitionism and Public
Masturbation); (2) disclosure of evidence against Defendant (Disciplinary
Offense Report was read); (3) an Opportunity to be heard (Hearing on June 4,
2008); (4) a neutral and detached hearing body (Hearing Officer); (5) aid of
Counsel substitute or other substitute aid; and (6) a written statement by the
Fact Finder as to the Evidence relied upon (Major Disciplinary Report and
Hearing Record). Therefore, by a final agency decision dated August 21, 2008,
the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that denial
before this Court.
Appellant
was observed by an Officer engaging in a sex act with himself and made comments
directed to the female officer.
Having
fully considered the documents filed by Appellant and the Department and having
closely reviewed the record in this matter, I find that Appellant’s disciplinary
conviction and the sanctions imposed upon him as a consequence of that
conviction were the result of a routine and good-faith exercise of the
Department’s administrative responsibilities that is sufficiently supported by the
evidence in the record. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest
that the Department’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or the result of
personal bias or prejudice. Accordingly, the Department’s decision in this
matter should be affirmed.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s
grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________
Carolyn C.
Matthews
Administrative
Law Judge
February 4, 2009
Columbia, South Carolina
|