ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. KER 0031-04
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In the above-captioned matter, Appellant Terrance Collier appeals the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) to revoke thirty days of his “good-time” credit and to suspend his canteen privileges for thirty days as punishment for stealing prison property in violation of DOC Disciplinary Code § 2.06. 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 January 6, 2004, Appellant was observed on a security camera in the cafeteria of the Kershaw Correctional Institution passing food items stolen from the institution’s kitchen, including an onion and a stick of butter, to another inmate. The incident was witnessed by two DOC Corrections Officers, Sergeant A. Price and K-9 Agent Little. As a result of this incident, Appellant was charged with violating DOC Disciplinary Code § 2.06, Stealing.
Appellant was notified of the charge against him on January 8, 2004, and a hearing on the charge was held before a DOC Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) on January 14, 2004. At the hearing, Sergeant Price testified to the details of the incident and his incident report was read into the record. Appellant, who was represented by counsel substitute, testified on his own behalf. 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 thirty days of Appellant’s good-time credit and suspended his canteen privileges for thirty days. Appellant appealed his disciplinary conviction to the Department and then to this Court. On appeal, Appellant contends that, during his disciplinary proceedings, the Department violated certain procedural requirements set forth in its policies for disciplinary matters.
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 fully supported by the evidence in the record. In particular, the technical procedural errors alleged by Appellant do not appear to have merit, and, in any event, would constitute harmless error.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s January 14, 2004 disciplinary conviction for stealing is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
August 11, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
|
