ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of
Robert Carrillo, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since June
5, 1999. On January 11, 2000, Inmate Carrillo was convicted of Refusing or Failing to Obey Orders,
Disciplinary Code 2.13 in a minor disciplinary hearing after he failed to turn in his blanket as directed.
As a result of his conviction, Inmate Carrillo received a reprimand. As a result of the reprimand,
Inmate Carrillo failed to earn twenty days of "good time" credit. Inmate Carrillo filed a grievance with
the Department on February 28, 2000, and received a final decision from the Department on May 8,
2000. On June 12, 2000, Inmate Carrillo filed this appeal with the Division.
The Division'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). In Al- Shabazz,
the Supreme Court created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final decisions of the
Department of Corrections in "non-collateral" matters, i.e., matters in which an inmate does not
challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence, by appealing those decisions to the Division and
ultimately to the circuit court pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. 338 S.C. at 373, 376, 527
S.E.2d at 752, 754. In its appellate capacity, the Division is primarily concerned with ensuring that the
appellants receive all procedural process they are due. The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process applies only to the deprivation of a
life, liberty, or property interest. Board of Regents of State College v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S. Ct.
2701, 2705 (1972). The statutory right to sentence-related credits is a protected liberty interest under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974); Al-Shabazz v.
State, 338 S.C. at 369-370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. An inmate facing the loss of sentence-related credits is
entitled to minimal due process to ensure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. at 370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. However, an inmate has no liberty interest in
sentence-related credits that have not yet been earned. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 1995)
(mere opportunity to earn good-time credits does not constitute a constitutionally cognizable liberty
interest sufficient to trigger the protection of the Due Process Clause), citing Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995) (where state's action does not "inevitably affect the duration of [the
inmate's] sentence," no constitutionally cognizable liberty interest exists).
A parole-eligible inmate in the custody of the Department who has not been subjected to punishment for
misbehavior and has otherwise followed the rules of the Department "is entitled to a deduction from
the term of his sentence...computed at the rate of twenty days for each month served." S.C. Code Ann. §
24-13-210(A) (Supp. 1995). Such an inmate is not entitled to any deduction for good behavior until he
has completed that month's service. See id.; 1978 S.C. Op. Atty. Gen. 172 ("the effect of the language
of the statute...is to require that the deductions be made for the time spent in actual incarceration with
good behavior"). Therefore, an inmate who violates a Department rule will fail to earn twenty days'
"good-time" credit for the month in which the rule violation occurred.
I find that Inmate Carrillo has no liberty interest in "good time" credit he failed to earn as a result of his
rule violation in December 1999. As such, Inmate Carrillo is not entitled to an Al-Shabazz-type
hearing, in which he is represented by counsel substitute, if necessary, and in which he has the
opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses. Therefore, because Inmate Carrillo was not
entitled to any hearing regarding a Facility rules violation resulting in his inability to earn "good time"
credit, the Minor Disciplinary Hearing provided by the Department was more than sufficient. That the
Department routinely affords inmates charged with rules violations and other minor infractions some process does not indicate that any process is required, much less the process described in Al-Shabazz when a life, liberty, or property interest is at stake. Accordingly, the Department's final decision is
affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Appellant's appeal is denied, and the Final Decision of the
Department is hereby AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
Administrative Law Judge
May 15, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
