ORDERS:
ORDER
Grievance No. LCI 1800-07
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 Use or Possession of Narcotics,
Marijuana, or Unauthorized Drugs, 903 under SCDC Inmate Disciplinary System
Policy OP-22.14. He contends that the conviction should be overturned because the
amount of marijuana recorded in the incident report was incorrect. 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 Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana, or Unauthorized
Drugs 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 sixty (60) days good time; loss of three hundred and
sixty five (365) days canteen and phone privileges; ninety (90) days
disciplinary detention; and loss of contact visitation for three hundred and
sixty five (365) 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 (Use or Possession of
Narcotics, Marijuana, or Unauthorized Drugs); (2) disclosure of evidence against
Defendant (Disciplinary Offense Report was read); (3) an Opportunity to be
heard (Hearing on November 7, 2007); (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 October 8, 2008, the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant
now appeals that denial before this Court.
The
charging official, Sergeant Skipper, reported that he shook down Appellant’s
cell and found in Appellant’s mattress a $20 bill and 17 packs of green, leafy
substance later confirmed to be marijuana. Sergeant Skipper reported the
marijuana weighed four (4) grams. During the hearing Appellant admitted the
marijuana was his. However, he raises as an issue that the marijuana could not
have weighed four (4) grams but should have weighed less.
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
|
