Booker 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

Patrick L.
Booker, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-143 

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 11,
2011

REVERSED

Michael Vincent Laubshire, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Patrick L. Booker, pro se, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In
this inmate grievance case, the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the
Department) appeals an Administrative Law Court's (ALC) reversal of the
Department's conviction of Patrick L. Booker for being "Out of Place,"
offense 828 of the Department's policy manual.  The Department argues substantial
evidence supported its finding that Booker was in library prison facilities
without authorization even though a library schedule indicated Booker's unit
was scheduled for access to the library at the time of the incident.  We agree.[1]

This court may reverse a
decision of the ALC only if it is affected by an error of law or "clearly
erroneous in view of the . . . substantial evidence on the whole
record . . . ."  Hendricks v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs.,
385 S.C. 625, 628-29, 686 S.E.2d 191, 193 (2009) (citing S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010)).  Under the Department's policy manual, an inmate
commits offense 828, "Out of Place," if the inmate "without
authority either fails to report to his/her appointed place of duty or
assignment or any other place to which he/she was ordered; . . .
is found to be in an unauthorized area; or does not have specific approval to
be in an unauthorized area."

Here, the ALC held
substantial evidence did not support the Department's finding Booker was in the
prison library without authorization.  However, the record included an incident
report indicating inmates were not allowed access to the library at the time of
the incident because the library was scheduled to open late.  Accordingly,
substantial evidence supported the Department's finding, and the ALC's holding
was clearly erroneous in light of the substantial evidence in the record.  

REVERSED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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