SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the appeal of Carlos Dennison, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (Department). Appellant Dennison was convicted of violating SCDC Disciplinary Code § 822, Sexual Misconduct. As a result of his conviction, Dennison lost thirty (30) days of “good-time” credit. Dennison filed a grievance with the Department and received the Department’s final decision on November 29, 2004. On December 17, 2004, Dennison filed this appeal.

BACKGROUND

On July 2, 2004, Officer Brown was conducting an inmate count on Unit A-wing at Ridgeland Correctional Institution. When she approached cell # 38, Officer Brown observed the Appellant sitting on the toilet with his penis exposed masturbating. When Officer Brown looked at the Appellant, he was looking directly back at her “with a big smile on his face.” After the incident, Officer Brown completed an Incident Report and the Appellant was charged with violating SCDC Disciplinary Code § 822, Sexual Misconduct. The Appellant received written notice of the charge on July 6, 2004.

On July 22, 2004, a Major Disciplinary Hearing was held before a Department Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) concerning the Sexual Misconduct charge. At the Appellant’s request, he was provided a counsel substitute. Additionally, at his request, Officer Brown was present at the hearing. During the hearing, the DHO read a narrative of Officer Brown’s Incident Report into the Record and received testimony from the Appellant and Officer Brown as evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO found the Appellant guilty of Sexual Misconduct and sanctioned him with the loss of thirty (30) days of good-time credit. After the hearing, the DHO completed a Major Disciplinary Report and Hearing Record which documented the DHO’s findings.

The Appellant filed a grievance appealing his conviction of violating SCDC Disciplinary Code § 822. After reviewing his allegation, the Warden denied the Appellant’s grievance. Appellant Dennison then appealed the Warden’s decision asking that the Department reverse his loss of “good-time” credits. The Department denied his grievance, stating that the evidence supported the conviction and that the sanction imposed was appropriate for the violation committed. This appeal followed. In his Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that:

1. The evidence failed to establish that he committed the above infraction; and

2. He was not provided due process because his counsel substitute and the DHO did not fully question his accuser

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court’s jurisdiction to hear this matter is derived entirely from the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). The Court’s appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals is limited to state created liberty interests typically involving: (1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status; and (2) cases in which an inmate has received punishment in a major disciplinary hearing as a result of a serious rule violation. Id.^[1]

When reviewing the Department’s decisions in inmate grievance matters, the Court sits in an appellate capacity. Id. at 756. Consequently, the review in these inmate grievance cases is limited to the Record presented. An Administrative Law Judge may not substitute his judgment for that of an agency “as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.” S.C. Code Ann. § 1‑23‑380(A)(6) (Supp. 2003). Furthermore, an Administrative Law Judge may not reverse or modify an agency’s decision unless substantial rights of the Appellant have been prejudiced because the decision is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the whole Record, arbitrary or affected by an error of law. See Section 1-23-380(A)(6); See also Marietta Garage, Inc. v. South Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, 337 S.C. 133, 522 S.E.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1999); South Carolina Dept. of Labor, Licensing and Regulation v. Girgis, 332 S.C. 162, 503 S.E.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1998). “‘Substantial evidence’ is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the Record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order to justify its action.” Lark v. Bi‑Lo, 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981). Accordingly, the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388 (1995).

Additionally, in Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” In making that determination, the Court is not required to examine the entire record, independently assess the credibility of witnesses, or weigh the evidence. Id.

Moreover, in Al-Shabazz, the Court underscored that since prison officials are in the best position to decide inmate disciplinary matters, the Courts and therefore this tribunal adhere to a “hands off” approach to internal prison disciplinary policies and procedures when reviewing inmate appeals under the APA. Al-Shabazz at 757; See also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the traditional “hands off” approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison discipline and policy).