ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
Grievance No. KER 0543-01
I. Introduction
Keith Brockington, #226307 (Brockington) brings this appeal challenging a decision by the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (DOC) which convicted Brockington of the use or possession of marijuana for which he lost 180 days of good
time credit. Jurisdiction is invoked in the instant case since this matter is a disciplinary hearing in which Brockington was
punished by the loss of good time credits, a loss which impacts a created liberty interest. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354,
527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000); McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5,
2001). After a review of the record and the arguments, the DOC decision is AFFIRMED.
II. Scope of Review
In this review, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) acts "in an appellate capacity" and is "restricted to reviewing the
decision below." Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 754 (2000). The review must apply the criteria of
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2000). See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(B) (Supp. 2000) (where an ALJ is
directed to conduct a review "in the same manner prescribed in [§ 1-23-380](A)."). Section 1-23-380(A)(6) establishes the
following:
The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(c) made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) affected by other error of law;
(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
In this case, Brockington argues that the DOC decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial
evidence on the whole record.
III. Analysis
Substantial Evidence
Brockington argues the DOC decision must be reversed since the decision is not supported by the evidence. I cannot agree.
In examining a DOC determination for the presence of evidentiary support, an ALJ must review the matter in an appellate
capacity. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742. In that capacity, an ALJ reviewing factual disputes between
DOC and the inmate "will not substitute [the ALJ's] judgment for that of the [DOC Hearing Officer] as to the weight of the
evidence on questions of fact." S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2000).
Thus, once the facts are established by the Hearing Officer, the ALJ will not re-weigh the evidence in an attempt to come to
an independent conclusion on the factual dispute. Rather, the ALJ will rely upon the Hearing Officers factual
determinations unless such those determinations are "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence on the whole record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23- 380(A)(6)(e) (Supp. 2000). In determining if substantial evidence
supports the Hearing Officer's factual determinations, the ALJ does not look for "a mere scintilla of evidence nor evidence
viewed blindly from one side, but [rather looks for ] evidence which, when considering the record as a whole, would allow
reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the agency reached." Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv.
Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984). Accordingly, if such evidence is present, substantial evidence is
present and the factual determinations will not be overturned.
Here, substantial evidence supports the factual determinations made below. The test results from two separate tests of
Brockington's urine each showed a positive presence for marijuana. Brockington argues the tests do not constitute
substantial evidence since the tests are not reliable in that the DOC official administering the test was not a trained Drug
Testing Officer. However, the evidence is to the contrary. Here, the officer performing the testing made an affirmative
assertion that he has received the training needed to perform the test. Thus, the testimony is that the DOC official is a Drug
Testing Officer and such testimony was not refuted at the hearing These determinations would allow reasonable minds to
reach the conclusion that Brockington committed the act here in dispute. Thus, substantial evidence supports the DOC
decision.
IV. Conclusion
The guilty verdict entered by DOC against Keith Brockington, #226307 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 30, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |