ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. ACI 0577-01
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant to the decision of the South
Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). Appellant Wayne Carr appeals the
calculation of his sentence by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department). Having reviewed the
record, applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I conclude that the decision of the Department must
be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Appellant contends that the Department has improperly calculated his projected release date. Specifically, Appellant
believes, based upon his own calculations, that the Department is only crediting him with ten days of "good-time" credit for
each month served rather than twenty days of good-time credit per month. In response, the Department contends that
Appellant is, in fact, receiving twenty days of good-time credit per month and that the projected release date calculated by
the Department is correct.
ANALYSIS
In Al-Shabazz, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that inmates may seek review of final decisions of the Department
in certain "non-collateral" or administrative matters (i.e., those matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity
of a conviction or sentence) by appealing those decisions to the ALJD pursuant to the South Carolina Administrative
Procedures Act (APA). Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 376, 527 S.E.2d at 754. In McNeil v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, a majority of the judges of the ALJD, sitting en banc, held that this tribunal's jurisdiction to hear inmate
appeals under Al-Shabazz is limited to: (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. McNeil v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, No.
00-ALJ-04-00336-AP, slip op. at 4-5 (S.C. Admin. Law Judge. Div. Sept. 5, 2001) (en banc). In the case at hand,
Appellant contends that the Department improperly calculated his sentence; accordingly, this tribunal has jurisdiction over
this matter.
When reviewing the Department's decisions in inmate grievance matters, the ALJD sits in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 377, 527 S.E.2d at 754. Consequently, this tribunal's review of inmate appeals is confined to the
record presented, id., and its inquiry into these matters is primarily concerned with ensuring that the Department has
granted aggrieved inmates the process they are due when their constitutional rights are implicated. Id. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at
750; McNeil, No. 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP, at 5 ("[O]ur review is limited solely to the determination of whether the
Department granted 'minimal due process' in reaching [its] decisions . . . ."). Further, recognizing that prison officials are
in the best position to decide inmate disciplinary matters, this tribunal will adhere to the traditional "hands off" approach to
internal prison disciplinary policies and procedures when reviewing inmate appeals under the APA. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C.
at 382, 527 S.E.2d at 757; see also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the traditional "hands off"
approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison discipline and policy). However, notwithstanding this
deferential standard of review, this tribunal must conduct meaningful review of the Department's actions to ensure that
inmate grievances are addressed in a fair, reasonable, and efficient manner. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 383, 527 S.E.2d at
757.
Here, Appellant's claim that he is not receiving the proper amount of good-time credit is without merit. Figures submitted
by the Department clearly demonstrate that Appellant's "max-out," or release, date was calculated based upon Appellant
having earned and continuing to earn twenty days of good-time credit for every month served. See Respondent's Brief, Ex.
2, "Maxout Date Calculation Worksheet." According to these calculations, Appellant is receiving the proper amount of
good-time credit. The contradictory projected release date reached by Appellant, see Petitioner's Brief at 3, is based upon a
logical error in his calculations. (1) The Department is properly crediting Appellant with twenty days of good-time credit per
month and has properly calculated Appellant's projected release date.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department's denial of Appellant's grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
July 17, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. In his brief, Appellant calculates the good-time credits to be applied to his sentence based upon the assumption that he
will serve the entirety of his given sentence (i.e., without taking into account an early release). Appellant then subtracts
these credits from his given sentence to determine his release date. However, at the time of that release date, Appellant
would not have served the entire length of his given sentence and thus would not have earned much of the good-time credit
he used to arrive at that release date. In short, to be released on the date he calculates as his release date, Appellant would
have to be credited with good-time credits that he had not yet earned. |