ORDERS:
ORDER OF REMAND
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to the appeal of Kevin Sanders, an
inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (Department). On January 18, 2000, the Appellant was convicted
of violating SCDC Disciplinary Code 2.9, Sexual Misconduct, at Kershaw Correctional Institution. As a result of his
conviction, the Appellant lost 120 days of good time credit. The Appellant filed a grievance with the Department and
received the Department's final decision on May 11, 2000. On June 12, 2000, the Appellant filed this appeal. After
receiving the Appellant's Brief on October 18, 2000, I issued an Order on June 1, 2001, dismissing this case because the
Department failed to file a brief. Following that Order, the Department made a Motion to Reopen the case arguing that it
never received the Appellant's brief. Pursuant to that motion, I ordered both parties to supply the Division with any
affidavits they believed supported their respective positions. After reviewing the affidavits submitted by the parties, I find
that this case should be reopened.
Nevertheless, upon examination of the transcript of the Appellant's disciplinary hearing, it is apparent that it is of little use
in determining whether the Appellant was afforded all process due the Appellant. As a result, there is insufficient evidence
upon which this tribunal can rely to find that the Appellant was afforded due process before the Department sanctioned
him with the loss of 120 days of good time. Consequently, I cannot determine whether that decision was supported by
substantial evidence on the whole record. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (1986 & Supp. 2001). Because the record
in this matter does not afford this tribunal the opportunity to conduct meaningful review of Appellant's claims, this case
must be remanded to the Department to make further findings in order to establish a reviewable record. See David E.
Shipley, South Carolina Administrative Law 7-57 (2d ed. 1989); see also D&D Leasing Co. of S.C. v. Gentry, 298 S.C.
342, 380 S.E.2d 823 (1989) ("The burden was on Petitioner, as appellant, to furnish a sufficient record from which an
intelligent review could be conducted.").
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Department to either prepare an accurate
transcript based upon the hearing tapes upon which this Division can conduct meaningful review of the Appellant's claims
or conduct another disciplinary hearing on the charge of SCDC Disciplinary Code 2.9 pursuant to its policies.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Ralph K. Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
June 25, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
