South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Trennie Fuller, #227787 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Trennie Fuller, #227787

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
06-ALJ-04-00419-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF REVERSAL WITH PROVISO

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed, by Appellant (Inmate) above named, who is incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). Inmate appeals his conviction for Striking an Inmate with/without a Weapon (810) for which he lost 48 days good time credits. The Notice of Appeal filed by Inmate asserts the following grounds:

a) Department’s decision is unfair;

b) Department’s decision is biased;

c) Department’s decision is not in accord with its own policies and procedures;

d) Alleged victim was not present at the hearing and did not provide a statement;

e) Inmate not allowed to hear the testimony of witnesses for SCDC or review their statement;

f) Charging officer was not present at the hearing;

g) Other inmates allegedly involved were released from pre-hearing detention before Appellant was released;

h) The investigation took too long (or Inmate was kept in pre-hearing detention too long); and

i) There was no evidence that Inmate was involved in the incident.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court's jurisdiction to hear this matter is derived entirely from the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). The Court's appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals is limited to state created liberty interests typically involving: (1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status; and (2) cases in which an inmate has received punishment in a major disciplinary hearing as a result of a serious rule violation. Id. When reviewing the Department's decisions in inmate grievance matters, the Court sits in an appellate capacity. Id, 527 S.E.2d at 756. Consequently, the review in these inmate grievance cases is limited to the Record presented.

An Administrative Law Judge may not substitute his judgment for that of an agency "as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." S.C. Code Ann. § 1- 23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2005). Furthermore, an Administrative Law Judge may not reverse or modify an agency's decision unless substantial rights of the Appellant have been prejudiced because the decision is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the whole Record, arbitrary or affected by an error of law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2005); See also Marietta Garage, Inc. v. South Carolina Dep’t of Public Safety, 337 S.C. 133, 522 S.E.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1999); South Carolina Dep’t of Labor, Licensing and Regulation v. Girgis, 332 S.C. 162, 503 S.E.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1998). "'Substantial evidence' is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the Record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order to justify its action." Lark v. Bi-Lo, 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981). Accordingly, the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388 (1995). Moreover, in Al-Shabazz, the Court made it clear that since prison officials are in the best position to decide inmate disciplinary matters, the Courts and therefore this tribunal adhere to a "hands off" approach to internal prison disciplinary policies and procedures when reviewing inmate appeals under the APA. Al-Shabazz at 757; See also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the traditional "hands off" approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison discipline and policy).

DISCUSSION

In this appeal, Inmate Fuller appeals his conviction for Striking an Inmate with/without a Weapon (810) for which he lost 48 days good time credits. After reviewing the record, it is clear that substantial rights of the Appellant have been prejudiced because the Department’s decision is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the whole Record. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2005); See also Marietta Garage, Inc. v. South Carolina Dep’t of Public Safety, 337 S.C. 133, 522 S.E.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1999); South Carolina Dep’t of Labor, Licensing and Regulation v. Girgis, 332 S.C. 162, 503 S.E.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1998). In reading the Transcript of the record of the Disciplinary Hearing, it became obvious that there was no “substantial evidence” evidence for Inmate to have been convicted of Striking an Inmate with/without a Weapon (810) and that his conviction thereof was arbitrary, capricious and characterized by an unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Briefly, there seems to be no doubt that Inmate was present when the attack on Inmate William Simmons occurred. However, there is no evidence that Inmate Fuller actually struck anyone with a lock in a sock. SCDC had confidential information concerning the incident but even that failed to provide a direct statement in the record that Inmate Fuller struck anyone. Moreover, there is no testimony about any wounds to Inmate William Simmons except stab wounds which were inflicted by Inmate Smith.

Even under the abbreviated process permitted in prison disciplinary proceedings, the evidence here does not measure up to the standard required.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth, the conviction of Appellant for Striking an Inmate with/without a Weapon (810) is hereby REVERSED and any good time credits or privileges taken are hereby RESTORED, PROVIDED, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require that Inmate Fuller be returned to the same institution where the incident occurred, if he in fact was removed therefrom.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________

September 5, 2006 John D. McLeod

Columbia, South Carolina Administrative Law Judge


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court