ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Leonard
A. Smith ("Appellant") on January 16, 2002. Appellant seeks review by the Division of a November 8, 2001 decision to
reduce the Appellant's custody level.
The Division has appellate jurisdiction over inmate appeals as a result of the South Carolina Supreme Court's opinion in
Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). The parties in the Al-Shabazz case were the Petitioner, the
Attorney General's Office, and the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The South Carolina Department of Mental
Health was not a party in that case.
In the conclusion of the Al-Shabazz opinion, the Supreme Court provided:
Our decision shall apply to all PCR actions filed and all administrative matters in which Department renders a final
decision after the date of this opinion. It also shall apply to all cases currently pending in circuit court or before this Court
in which the inmate is similarly situated to petitioner, i.e., cases in which Department has decided a non-collateral or
administrative matter and the inmate has not had the opportunity to obtain APA review in the manner we have outlined.
Those cases shall be remanded to Department for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
338 S.C. at 384, 527 S.E.2d at 758 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court indicated that "Department" as used in its
opinion referred to the Department of Corrections. Therefore, the opinion only applies to non-collateral or administrative
matters in post-conviction relief actions filed after February 14, 2000, in final decisions rendered by the Department of
Corrections after February 14, 2000, and in cases pending in a circuit court or the South Carolina Supreme Court on
February 14, 2000, in which the Department of Corrections has decided a non-collateral or administrative matter and the
inmate has not had the opportunity to obtain APA review.
The Al-Shabazz opinion gave the Division jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Department of Corrections on
appeal; it did not provide for appeals from final decisions of the Department of Mental Health to the Division. The
Division, therefore, does not have jurisdiction to hear this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
MARVIN F. KITTRELL
Chief Administrative Law Judge
May 17, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
