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:
Irvin McKenzie, #181657 vs. DOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Irvin McKenzie, #181657

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
02-ALJ-04-00760-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

This matter was originally before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to the appeal of Irvin McKenzie (“Appellant”), an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (“Department”). In his appeal, Appellant alleges that the Department failed to properly calculate his sentence to include computation of time he served prior to sentencing. On January 15, 2003, this case was remanded to the Department with instructions that the Department issue a final order containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Appellant’s grievance. On March 20, 2003, Appellant filed a Motion for Entry of Default on the basis that the Department had failed to respond to the Order of Remand. This tribunal issued an Order dated March 24, 2003, which ordered the Department to issue a final order on or before June 24, 2003, containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the January 15, 2003 Order of Remand.

This matter is now before the Division pursuant to Appellant’s Motion for Entry of Default, filed and served on the Department on June 25, 2003. Footnote In his Motion, Appellant states that the Department failed to issue a final order as required by the Order of March 24, 2003, and asks that this tribunal grant the relief sought in the appeal. As of the date of this Order, no response to Appellant’s Motion has been received, nor has the Division received any other communication from the Department regarding the issuance of a final order in this case. Footnote

The Department has been given ample opportunity to issue a final order in this matter setting forth detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Without a proper final order, this case cannot proceed, as this tribunal cannot conduct an appellate review. Although I recognize that the Department is not required to file its final order with this tribunal, Appellant’s Motion is pending before this tribunal, and without a response from the Department stating otherwise, this tribunal takes as true Appellant’s assertion that the Department has failed to comply with this tribunal’s prior order requiring it to issue a final order on or before June 24, 2003.

ALJD Rule 62 provides that “an Administrative Law Judge may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits.” A hyper-literal reading of this rule calls for a dismissal of the appellant’s appeal even when the appellant is in compliance so long as the respondent is not in compliance. Such a meaning cannot be employed since the literal reading creates an absurd result in that a lawful party (an inmate in compliance) will be penalized for the misdeeds of the non-complying party (DOC’s failure to timely file the Record on Appeal). See Focus on Beaufort v. Beaufort County 318 S.C.227, 456 S.E.2d 910 (1995) (“Courts will reject a meaning when to accept it would lead to a result so plainly absurd that it could not possibly have been intended by the legislature or would defeat the plain legislative intent.”). Accordingly, a proper reading of the ALJD Rule 62 is that the ALJ may dismiss the position of the non-complying respondent as opposed to dismissing the position established in the appellant’s appeal.

Because it is imperative that all parties to appeals abide by the time frames set forth in the Administrative Law Judge Division’s Rules and Orders, Footnote I am constrained to find the Department is in default and that the relief requested by the Appellant must be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action of the Department in the instant case is reversed and that the Department shall calculate Appellant’s sentence in the manner sought by Appellant in his appeal, to include computation of all time Appellant served prior to sentencing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is stayed for twenty-one (21) days pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(2) (Supp. 2002).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

C. DUKES SCOTT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE


July 18, 2003

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court