ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. KER 0225-04
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant Danny Brooks appeals the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) to revoke
forty days of his “good-time” credit as punishment for throwing a carton of
milk at a corrections officer in violation of DOC Disciplinary Code § 1.03.
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
March 26, 2004, Officer Jeffery Zielinski was serving breakfast to inmates in
the Security Management Unit at the Tyger River Correctional Institution.
Officer Zielinski placed a carton of milk inside the bar door of Appellant’s
cell, at which time Appellant responded with a profanity and threw the milk
container at Officer Zielinski. The container hit Officer Zielinski in the leg
and milk spilled on his pants. As a result of this incident, Appellant was
charged with violating DOC Disciplinary Code § 1.03, Striking an Employee With
or Without a Weapon.
Appellant
was notified of the charge against him on March 31, 2004, and a hearing on the
charge was held before a DOC Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) on April 6,
2004. At the hearing, Officer Zielinski’s incident report describing
Appellant’s actions was read into the record and Appellant, who was represented
by counsel substitute, was afforded an opportunity to testify regarding the
incident. In his testimony, Appellant contended that he did not throw the milk
at Officer Zielinski, but accidentally knocked the milk off his cell door. As
Appellant did not request that his accuser be present at the hearing, Officer
Zielinski did not attend the disciplinary hearing.
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 forty 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 in the record.
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 filed by Officer Zielinski detailing Appellant’s actions during
the incident in question. Accordingly, Appellant’s disciplinary conviction
must stand.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s April 6, 2004 disciplinary conviction
for striking a Department employee is AFFIRMED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
June 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
