ORDERS:
Grievance No. ACI-0675-00
ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE TO SENTENCE CALCULATION
I. Introduction
This matter is a challenge by Bennie Davenport (Davenport) to a calculation of sentence as determined by the South
Carolina (DOC). Having reviewed the record, applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I conclude
DOC's decision must be affirmed.
II. Analysis
In general, an inmate may appeal a final decision of DOC to the ALJD if the matter is "non-collateral" (i.e., a matter in
which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence). Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527
S.E.2d 742 (2000). More particular to the instant case, the ALJD has jurisdiction over inmate appeals that assert an error
has been made by DOC in the calculation of an inmate's sentence. McNeil v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, No.
00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (S.C. Admin. Law Judge. Div. Sept. 5, 2001) (en banc). In the instant case Davenport argues DOC
has wrongly calculated his sentence. Thus, jurisdiction is present in the ALJD.
When reviewing a DOC sentence calculation decision, the ALJD sits in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 377,
527 S.E.2d at 754. Thus, the review is confined to the record Id. 527 S.E.2d at 750. In making the review, the ALJ must
be mindful that a traditional "hands off" approach exists on discretionary decisions resulting from internal prison policies.
Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 382, 527 S.E.2d at 757; see also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the
traditional "hands off" approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison policy). However, such a deferential
standard of review does not preclude a reversal of the DOC determination. Rather, the ALJ conducts a review of DOC's
actions to ensure the inmate grievance is addressed in a fair, reasonable, and efficient manner. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 383,
527 S.E.2d at 757.
In this case, Davenport argues DOC is incorrectly computing his "max-out" date due to DOC incorrectly adding time to his
sentence due to violations. I disagree.
DOC computes an inmates "max-out" date premised on the inmate earning the statutory maximum amount for good
behavior. However, if during the period of imprisonment the inmate is found guilty of violating DOC policy, the inmate
does not earn credits for the month of the violation. Thus, the max-out date previously computed becomes incorrect.
Therefore, DOC "adds" additional time to the max-out date to reflect the fact the inmate failed to earn credits during a
specific period.
In the instant case, the record shows that Davenport failed to earn good time credit of 320 days and lost 980 days for a total
of 1,300 days. Such adjustments are supported by the records of DOC and no basis warrants adjusting DOC conclusion.
III. Conclusion
The claim raised by Davenport does not result in a change in the sentence calculation made by DOC. Accordingly, DOC's
decision is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 22, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
