ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (“Division”) pursuant to the
appeal of James Sattler, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (“Department”)
since June 11, 1996. On September 9, 2003, Inmate Sattler filed a grievance with the Department,
alleging that the Department had misapplied his earned work credits and good-time credits. Inmate
Sattler received the Department’s final decision on January 22, 2004, essentially informing Inmate
Sattler that his maxout date has been properly calculated. On January 27, 2004, Inmate Sattler filed
this appeal with the Division. BACKGROUND
In 1996, Inmate Sattler was sentenced to twenty years after he was convicted of Criminal
Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Second Degree. After inquiring about the application of his work
credits with his caseworker, Inmate Sattler filed a grievance on September 9, 2003, in which he
requested that all work and good-time credits be properly applied according to policy and statute. In
October 2003, Inmate Sattler was informed that he has a mandatory service requirement of 17 years
on his 20-year sentence and cannot earn credits which would allow him to max-out before his
mandatory service time. Inmate Sattler then filed a “Step 2" grievance in which he alleged that he
has maintained a steady work record since his incarceration and his current release date has not
reflected application of his earned work credits. On January 22, 2004, the Department informed
Inmate Sattler that the calculation of his maxout date is based on his Criminal Docket Report (CDR)
397 and was confirmed to be accurate, and that all applicable policies and procedures of the
Department meet the requirements of the South Carolina statutory law. This appeal followed.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
(1)Is the Department’s calculation of Inmate Sattler’s max-out date correct in that it
requires him to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence in actual confinement before he may max-out?
(2)Is the Department correctly applying good-time credits and earned work credits to
Inmate Sattler’s sentence?
ANALYSIS
The Division’s jurisdiction to hear this matter is derived entirely from the decision of the
South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). In Al-
Shabazz, the Supreme Court created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final
decisions of the Department of Corrections in “non-collateral” matters, i.e., matters in which an
inmate does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence, by appealing those decisions to the
Division and ultimately to the circuit court pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. Id. at
373, 376, 527 S.E.2d at 752, 754. These matters typically arise in two ways: (1) when an inmate
is disciplined and punishment is imposed; and (2) when an inmate believes that his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status have been calculated incorrectly. Id. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750.
Subsequently, in Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d
124 (2003), the Court clarified the Division’s jurisdiction over inmate cases, holding that for the
Division to have jurisdiction over an inmate’s claim, it must implicate a state-created liberty interest.
As in all cases subject to appellate review by the Division, the standard of review in these
inmate grievance cases is limited to the record presented. An Administrative Law Judge may not
substitute his judgment for that of an agency unless the agency’s determination is affected by error
of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole
record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 1999); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d
at 756; Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). Moreover, to afford “meaningful
judicial review,” the Administrative Law Judge must “adequately explain” his decision by
“documenting the findings of fact” and basing his decision on “reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence on the whole record.” Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756. 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. I find that
the Department afforded Inmate Sattler all process that was due in these circumstances. Inmate
Sattler raised the issue of his sentence calculation by filing a grievance, in which he stated his belief
that his earned work credits were misapplied. After verifying Inmate Sattler’s sentence calculation,
the Warden responded by explaining that Inmate Sattler must serve at least 17 years on his sentence,
and that his earned work credits cannot be applied in such a manner as would allow him to max-out
prior to serving the 17 years. Inmate Sattler was then permitted to appeal the Warden’s decision to
the Department level. In response to Inmate Sattler’s appeal, the Department stated that the
calculation of his max-out date is based on his Criminal Docket Report (CDR) 397 and was
confirmed to be accurate, and that all applicable policies and procedures of the Department meet the
requirements of the South Carolina statutory law. The Department then informed Inmate Sattler that
he could appeal the Department’s final decision to the Division. As such, I find that the Department
complied with the minimal due process required in this case.
Moreover, I find that there is substantial evidence that the Department correctly calculated
Inmate Sattler’s sentence. Inmate Sattler was convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor,
Second Degree, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-655, which is a violent offense pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
§ 16-1-60 and a Class C felony pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-90. Upon conviction of a Class
C felony, a person must be imprisoned not more than twenty years. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-20(A)(3).
A Class C felony constitutes a “no parole offense.” S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-100. A person
convicted of a “no parole offense” is not eligible for early release until he has served at least eighty-fiver percent of the actual term of imprisonment imposed. S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-150(A). “This
percentage must be calculated without the application of earned work credits, education credits, or
good conduct credits . . . .” Id. Thus, Sattler cannot max out before he has served at least eighty-five
percent of the twenty year sentence, or seventeen years, to be calculated without the application of
credits.
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-210, prisoners convicted of a “no parole offense” may
earn three days of good-time credit for each month served, but are not entitled to a reduction below
the minimum term of incarceration provided for in S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-150. Pursuant to S.C.
Code Ann. § 24-13-230, prisoners convicted of a “no parole offense” may earn six days of work
credit for every month employed, but are not entitled to a reduction below the minimum term of
incarceration provided for in S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-150. Inmate Sattler has failed to establish that
the Department is incorrectly applying his statutory right to good-time and earned work credits.
Because the Department’s Final Decision is supported by “evidence which, considering the record
as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that [the Department] reached,”
see Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 304 (1981), I affirm the Department’s Final Decision.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Final Decision of the Department be AFFIRMED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Inmate Sattler’s appeal be dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
Administrative Law Judge
March 22, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
