ORDERS:
ORDER OF REMAND
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.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
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. |
