ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. KER 0108-03
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant Robert Grant appeals the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) to revoke
ninety days of his “good-time” credit as punishment for sexual misconduct in
violation of DOC Disciplinary Code § 2.09. Having reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I conclude
that the decision of the Department must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On
May 8, 2003, a DOC corrections officer, Officer C. Mickens, conducted a
security check of Dorm 1 of the Wateree River Correctional Institution. During
the security check, Officer Mickens observed Appellant masturbating at the
entrance to an open shower shall during dorm clean-up time. As a result of this
incident, Appellant was charged with violating DOC Disciplinary Code § 2.09,
Sexual Misconduct.
Appellant
was notified of the charge against him on May 19, 2003, and a hearing on the
charge was held before a DOC Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) on May 21, 2003.
At the hearing, the incident report filed by Officer Mickens was read into the
record and Officer Mickens testified by telephone regarding the details of the
incident. Appellant, who was represented by counsel substitute, also testified
at the hearing and was allowed to present the written statement of another
inmate concerning the incident. In his testimony, Appellant described the
incident as a misunderstanding caused by Officer Mickens entering into the
shower area unannounced. At the close of the hearing, the DHO found Appellant
guilty of the charge against him and prepared a written report containing his
findings. As punishment for the offense, the DHO revoked ninety days of
Appellant’s good-time credit. Appellant appealed his disciplinary conviction
to the Department and then to this Court. On appeal, Appellant contends that
his disciplinary conviction is not supported by the evidence.
DISCUSSION
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).
Having carefully reviewed the record in this matter under the due process
standards set out in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), and their progeny, I find
that Appellant’s disciplinary conviction must be affirmed. The disciplinary
hearing conducted by the DHO was procedurally sound and the DHO’s conclusions
are sufficiently supported by the evidence in the record, including the
incident report and detailed testimony provided by Officer Mickens.
Accordingly, Appellant’s disciplinary conviction must stand.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s May 21, 2003 disciplinary conviction for
sexual misconduct is AFFIRMED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
Post Office Box
11667
Columbia, South
Carolina 29211-1667
June 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
