ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This
matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the appeal
of the above named Appellant, an inmate incarcerated with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC or Department). In this appeal, Inmate Warner
challenges the Department’s calculation of his sentence. Specifically, Warner
contends that the Department has failed to credit him with all sentence credits
he has earned.
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. 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 Warner challenges the Department’s calculation of his
sentence claiming the Department has failed to credit him with all sentence
credits earned. However, after reviewing the record, it is clear that the
Department has given Inmate Warner credit for all sentence credits earned. It
is also clear that the Department has properly taken away sentence credits for
disciplinary infractions. The Department’s decision is based on substantial
evidence and is not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or affected by an error of
law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2005). Therefore, this
Court adheres to the “hands off” approach cited in Al-Shabazz regarding this
internal prison matter. See Al-Shabazz at 757.
ORDER
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the foregoing reasons the decision of the
Department in this matter is AFFIRMED and the above referenced appeal is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
John D. McLeod
Administrative Law Judge
September 5, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
