ORDERS:
ORDER OF REMAND
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Thomas Mundy,
an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (Department"). In his appeal, Mundy alleges that the
Department has failed to properly calculate his sentence by crediting him with 318 days. (1)
On September 5, 2001, the Division issued an En Banc Order in McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001). The decision holds that the Division's appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals is
limited to two types of cases: (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.
In this case, Mundy challenges the calculation of his sentence. As such, I find that this tribunal has jurisdiction to hear
Mundy's appeal.
However, upon review of the record on appeal, I find that the Department's final decision in this matter fails to set forth
findings which are sufficiently detailed to enable this tribunal to conduct a meaningful appellate review. (2) Pursuant to the
South Carolina Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 333 S.C. 12, 507 S.E.2d 328 (1998), the
findings of an administrative body must be "sufficiently detailed to enable [the reviewing body] to determine whether the
findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been applied properly to those findings." Id., 507 S.E.2d at
332. Based on the Record on Appeal, this tribunal is unable to determine whether the Department properly calculated
Mundy's sentence. Consequently,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Department of Corrections for the issuance of a final
order containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in conformance with the principles set forth herein.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
June 10, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. The origin of the 318 days appears central to the instant conflict; Mundy apparently believes that he served 318 days in
jail prior to his sentencing for violating the terms of his parole; the Department believes the 318 days were the number of
days Mundy was out on parole before he violated the terms of his parole.
2. This is not to suggest that the Department must give Mundy and others challenging their sentence calculations a hearing.
In a miscalculated sentence case, the grievance procedure established by the Department, in which an inmate has the
opportunity to raise the matter to prison officials and in which a reviewable record is created, satisfies the requirements of
due process. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 375, 527 S.E.2d at 753. |
