ORDERS:
ORDER
Grievance No. MCI 159-08
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 Striking an Inmate with or without a
Weapon, 810 under SCDC Inmate Disciplinary System Policy OP-22.14. He contends
that the conviction should be overturned because insufficient evidence existed
to support his guilt. 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 Striking an Inmate with or without a Weapon 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—fifty dollars ($50.00) restitution; loss of six (6) days
good time; loss of one hundred and eighty (180) days canteen and phone
privileges; sixty (60) days disciplinary detention; and loss of contact
visitation for one hundred and eighty (180) days—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 (Striking an Inmate with
or without a Weapon); (2) disclosure of evidence against Defendant (Disciplinary
Offense Report was read); (3) an Opportunity to be heard (Hearing on May 14,
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 July 16, 2008, the
Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that denial
before this Court.
The
charging officer, Lieutenant Clark Brown, reported that on May 1, 2008, First
Responders informed him that Inmate Marcus Thomas, #284553, was found near the
laundry area with a cut above his left eye and was transported to medical.
When Lt. Brown asked Thomas what happened to him, he said, “nothing
Lieutenant.” Lt. Brown then sent Sergeant Hipps to the laundry area. Sgt.
Hipps returned to the control room with Appellant and told him Appellant had
hit Thomas. Lt. Brown reported. He reported that Appellant admitted to hitting
Thomas once and walking away. However, in a written statement, Appellant said
he threw a punch at Thomas but did not remember hitting him. Appellant raises
as an issue that insufficient evidence existed to show that he actually hit
Thomas. During the hearing, Lt. Brown stated again that Appellant told him
that he hit Thomas. Appellant claimed he only threw a punch but did not
remember if he hit him.
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
|
