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

CAPTION:
Keith V. Brown #188678 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Keith V. Brown #188678

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-04-01008-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
FINAL ORDER

On December 14, 2000, Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter. The Department correctly asserts that there is no final agency decision in this matter. However, the Department refused to process Appellant's grievance because it was a challenge to a change in policy occurring in December 1997 which affected Level 2, 7-day earned work credits. The Department's cited basis for refusal to process the grievance was Policy GA-01.12, which provides that the grievance should have been filed within 15 days of the change in policy. Appellant had pursued this issue in his PCR proceeding, as was customary before the Supreme Court of South Carolina substantially changed the way non-collateral matters are reviewed in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). During the week of September 30, 2000, the Supreme Court remanded this matter to the Department for further proceedings not inconsistent with Al-Shabazz. Appellant received this decision on October 6, 2000, and filed a grievance.

The Supreme Court stated in Al-Shabazz,

In recent years, this Court has allowed inmates to raise claims regarding sentence-related credits in a PCR proceeding because calculating those credits potentially affects the duration of a sentence.



Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 748 (2000). It is clear that Appellant's substantive concerns have not been addressed due to the transition in the way such matters were handled before, and now after Al-Shabazz. Appellant has raised a legitimate question whether the change in Department policy operates as an ex post facto law. A record and final decision by the Department is necessary for this tribunal to provide meaningful review of the Department's decision.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Department. The Department is ORDERED to address the substantive issue raised through the grievance process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

Post Office Box 11667

Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667



January 2, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court