Young v. SCDC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Derrick A. Young, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000060

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-203
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed May 11, 2016

AFFIRMED

Derrick A. Young, pro se.

Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to issues 1, 2, 3, and 5: Turner v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 377
S.C. 540, 544, 661 S.E.2d 118, 120 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[A] reviewing court may
reverse or modify an agency decision based on errors of law . . . ."); Al-Shabazz v.
State, 338 S.C. 354, 369-70, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000) ("The statutory right to
sentence-related credits is a protected 'liberty' interest under the Fourteenth
Amendment, entitling an inmate to minimal due process to ensure the state-created
right was not arbitrarily abrogated."); id. at 371, 527 S.E.2d at 751 ("[T]he
Supreme Court [has] held that due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding
involving serious misconduct requires: (1) that advance written notice of the
charge be given to the inmate at least twenty-four hours before the hearing; (2) that
factfinders must prepare a written statement of the evidence relied on and reasons
for the disciplinary action; (3) that the inmate should be allowed to call witnesses
and present documentary evidence, provided there is no undue hazard to
institutional safety or correctional goals; (4) that counsel substitute (a fellow
inmate or a prison employee) should be allowed to help illiterate inmates or in
complex cases an inmate cannot handle alone; and (5) that the persons hearing the
matter, who may be prison officials or employees, must be impartial.").

2. As to issue 4: Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d
231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal of the final decision of an administrative
agency, the standard of appellate review is whether the AL[C]'s findings are
supported by substantial evidence."); id. ("Although this court shall not substitute
its judgment for that of the AL[C] as to findings of fact, we may reverse or modify
decisions which are controlled by error of law or are clearly erroneous in view of
the substantial evidence on the record as a whole."); id. ("In determining whether
the AL[C]'s decision was supported by substantial evidence, this court need only
find, considering the record as a whole, evidence from which reasonable minds
could reach the same conclusion that the AL[C] reached.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, LOCKEMY, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.