Mason 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

Charles Mason, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-323

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed June 22,
2011

AFFIRMED

Charles Mason, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles
Mason appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order, which affirmed the South Carolina Department
of Corrections' (the Department) decision finding Mason guilty of smuggling
contraband and attempted escape.  On appeal, Mason argues the ALC erred in finding (1)
the Department's disciplinary proceedings did not violate Mason's due process
rights and (2) substantial evidence existed for the hearing officer to find
Mason guilty of both disciplinary convictions. We affirm.[1]

1.  We find the ALC did not err in
finding the Department's disciplinary proceedings did not violate Mason's due
process rights.  The Department complied with the minimum due process
requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings.  See Al-Shabazz v.
State, 338 S.C. 354, 371, 527 S.E.2d 742, 751 (2000) (noting in order
to comply with procedural due process for inmate disciplinary proceedings, the
following constitutional rights are required: "(1) that advance written
notice of the charge be given to the inmate . . . ; (2) that fact finders 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 . . .
should be allowed to help illiterate inmates or in complex cases . . . ; and
(5) that the persons hearing the matter . . . must be impartial" (citing Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974))).

2.  We find the ALC properly found
substantial evidence existed for the hearing officer to find Mason guilty of both
convictions.[2] 
This court may affirm the decision of the ALC if it is supported by substantial
evidence.  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(e) (Supp.
2010).  "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that, considering the
record as a whole, a reasonable mind would accept to support an administrative
agency's action."  Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756. 

Here, substantial evidence
exists to support the ALC's findings.  The Department presented evidence to
support Mason's disciplinary conviction for smuggling contraband.  Officer Marsico's
report identified the contraband, and the confidential informant connected
Mason to the contraband.  Additionally, evidence existed to support the
Department's finding Mason guilty of attempted escape.  Mason had several cuts
on his body soon after the incident, and the warden's confidential informant
had knowledge that Mason attempted to climb over the fence in order to get the
packages. 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS,
and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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

[2] We decline to address Mason's issue regarding the reliability
of the confidential informant because this issue was not raised at the
hearing.  See Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 379, 527 S.E.2d at
755 (finding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are
not preserved for review).