ORDERS:
ORDER OF REMAND
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to the
appeal of William Wheeler, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (Department).
The Appellant alleges that the Department wrongfully convicted him of violating SCDC Disciplinary
Policy § 1.01, Escape or Escape Attempt or Aiding and Abetting Escape With/Without Force.
Discussion
At approximately 8:30 p.m. on October 29, 2002, Officer Reed, an employee at the Lower
Savannah Pre-Release Center (Center), discovered that Inmate Wheeler had not returned to the
Center from his outside job. The Appellant, however, did return to the Center at approximately 10:50
p.m., although an unauthorized individual returned him.
The Record revealed that the Appellant’s
employer outside the Pre-Release Center, who was one of the only individuals authorized to transport
the Appellant to and from the Center, was related to the Appellant, against SCDC policy.
The
Appellant was convicted of violating SCDC Disciplinary Policy § 1.01 Escape or Escape Attempt or
Aiding and Abetting Escape With/Without Force. A Code 1.01 violation is:
The act of any inmate who by force or threat of force escapes, attempts to escape, or
aids another person to escape or attempt to escape from the confines of the
institution; from state, federal, county or city property; or from official custody or
supervision with or without force beyond the confines of the institution; to include
actual or constructive possession of tools or items which are intended to be used to
facilitate an escape.
As a result of that conviction, the Appellant lost 770 days of good time.
The facts surrounding this case and what actually occurred after Inmate Wheeler left the
Savannah Pre-Release Center on the morning of October 29, 2002 for his job outside the facility
establish that the Appellant clearly abused the privilege granted to him by the Center to prepare
himself for return to society. Furthermore, the Appellant’s employer, Mr. Adams, knew or should
have known that his actions of that day (and obviously days leading up to this incident), as a trustee
of prisoners, were against SCDC policy. Nevertheless, though the Appellant belatedly returned to
the low-security facility, he returned on his own volition. The evidence did not establish that he had
any intention of escaping from the institution or his trustee. Therefore, I find that there is insufficient
evidence to sustain the Appellant’s conviction of Escape. Rather, I find that the more appropriate
charge in this matter was Out of Place, SCDC Disciplinary Policy § 2.16. “Out of Place” is:
The Act of an inmate who without authority either fails to report to his/her appointed
place of duty of assignment or any other place to which he/she was ordered; leaves
his or her appointed place of duty or assignment; is found to be in an authorized area
of the institution.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appeal of William Wheeler in the instant docket
is REMANDED to the Department for it to conduct a hearing on a charge of “Out of Place” within
sixty (60) days from the date of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
August 14, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
