ORDERS:
ORDER OF REMAND
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD”) pursuant to the
appeal of George Brown, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (“Department”).
In his appeal, Brown challenges the Department’s calculation of his sentence.
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, Brown challenges the calculation of his sentence. As such, I find that this tribunal
has jurisdiction to hear Brown’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] . . . .”).
In his grievance, Inmate Brown contends, among other things, that the Department has not
properly reduced the term of his sentence by his sentence related credits in compliance with state
statutes. In the Department’s final agency decision contained on the Step 2 Grievance form and its
decision on the Step 1 form, the Department failed to address and rule upon this issue. It is error for
an appellate tribunal, as the Division is in these proceedings, to address an issue unless it was properly
preserved for appeal. For an issue to be preserved for appellate review by this tribunal, it must have
been raised to and ruled upon by the Department. Kiawah Resort Assocs. v. S. C. Tax Comm’n, 318
S.C. 502, 458 S. E. 2d 542 (1998). Although the issue was properly raised at the Department level,
it has not been ruled upon by the Department.
Further, because Inmate Brown’s grievance issue
has not been addressed in the Step 1 and Step 2 Grievance levels, 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. 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.”).
Because the Department failed to rule upon the issue of the proper manner of deducting
sentence related credits from the sentence, this case must be remanded to the Department.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Department of Corrections
for the issuance of a final agency decision containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law
in conformance with the principles set forth herein on or before October 2, 2003.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Docket is closed and if Appellant is not satisfied with
the Department’s final agency decision made pursuant to this Order, that a new appeal must be filed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
July 2, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |