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

Marvin Lovejoy vs. DOC

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Marvin Lovejoy, #267846

South Carolina Department of Corrections




This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") pursuant to the appeal of Martin Lovejoy, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department"). In his appeal, Lovejoy alleges that the Department failed to properly calculate his sentence to include computation of time he served prior to sentencing.

The ALJD'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). On September 5, 2001, the ALJD issued an En Banc Order in McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001), interpreting the Supreme Court's ruling in Al-Shabazz. The McNeil decision holds that the ALJD's appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals is limited to two types of cases: (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 the Department has taken an inmate's created liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing. Id.

In this case, Lovejoy challenges the calculation of his sentence. As such, I find that this tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Lovejoy's appeal.

This tribunal sits in an appellate capacity to review decisions from the Department; thus, it is restricted to reviewing the record presented. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(5) (Supp. 2000); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. at 377, 527 S.E.2d at 754. This tribunal may not substitute its judgment for that of the Department unless the Department's determination is affected by error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2000); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 755-56; Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). Although generally "[t]he appealing party has the burden of furnishing a sufficient record from which [a] court can make an intelligent review," Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East, 281 S.C. 442, 444, 316 S.E.2d 368, 369 (1984), the Department has the duty of providing the record on appeal in inmate grievance matters. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 377, 527 S.E.2d at 754; see also ALJD Rule 59 ("Within forty-five (45) days of the date the case is assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (date of assignment), [the Department] shall file the record with the [ALJD] . . . .").

Upon review of the record on appeal, I find that the Department's final decision in this matter fails to set forth findings which are sufficiently detailed to enable this tribunal to conduct a meaningful appellate review. (1) See Porter v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 333 S.C. 12, 21, 507 S.E.2d 328, 332 (1998) (The findings of an administrative body must be "sufficiently detailed to enable [the reviewing body] to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been applied properly to those findings."). The Department's final decision in this matter states that Lovejoy was incarcerated on August 3, 1999, for a probation violation, for which he served a sentence until June 2, 2000, and that Lovejoy received 120 days jail time credit from the sentencing judge. However, the decision fails to contain any findings as to the date Lovejoy was arrested for burglary second and the number of days he sat in jail awaiting his trial on that charge as opposed to the number of days he served his probation violation sentence. Although the record contains a document entitled "jail time" indicating that Lovejoy was booked on June 6, 2000 and sentenced on July 10, 2000, the "jail time" document does not state the name of the offense or the number of the warrant to which it pertains. Further, attached to Lovejoy's Reply Brief is a document which is not included in the record but which indicates that Lovejoy was detained on May 7, 1999 on charges of burglary second, F983196, the same offense and warrant number for which he was sentenced on July 10, 2000. Thus, this tribunal cannot determine from the record presented whether or not the Department correctly calculated Lovejoy's sentence. See D&D Leasing Co. v. Gentry, 298 S.C. 342, 380 S.E.2d 823 (1989) (stating that an appellate court cannot address an issue where the supporting record is incomplete).

Because the Department failed to furnish this tribunal with a sufficient record from which a meaningful review of Lovejoy's claims could be conducted, this case must be remanded to the Department to make further findings in order to establish a reviewable record.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Department of Corrections for the issuance of a final order containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in conformance with the principles set forth herein.





January 15, 2003

Columbia, South Carolina

1. This is not to suggest that the Department must give Lovejoy and others challenging their sentence calculations a hearing. In a miscalculated sentence case, the grievance procedure established by the Department, in which an inmate has the opportunity to raise the matter to prison officials and in which a reviewable record is created, satisfies the requirements of due process. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 375, 527 S.E.2d at 753.

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court