Carter 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 Ray Carter, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001060

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-505
Submitted September 1, 2015 – Filed November 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

Charles Ray Carter, pro se.

Daniel John Crooks, III, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2014) ("The court of appeals
may . . . reverse or modify the [ALC's] decision if the substantive rights of the
petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is: (a)
in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory
authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other
error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by
abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."); Olson v. S.C.
Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 57, 69, 663 S.E.2d 497, 504 (Ct. App.
2008) ("To prevail on a claim of denial of due process, there must be a showing of
substantial prejudice."); James Acad. of Excellence v. Dorchester Cty. Sch. Dist.
Two, 376 S.C. 293, 299, 657 S.E.2d 469, 472 (2008) (recognizing the State may
cure a procedural deprivation of due process by providing a subsequent procedural
remedy); State v. Bennett, 375 S.C. 165, 173, 650 S.E.2d 490, 495 (Ct. App. 2007)
("While [CDR] codes were developed and are used to provide an administrative
shortcut, they were never intended to replace statutory law."); id. ("Any errors in a
CDR code do not affect the crime, its characterization as violent or non-violent, for
example, or even if someone can be prosecuted for a crime."); Tant v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 408 S.C. 334, 346, 759 S.E.2d 398, 404 (2014) ("[T]he Department [of
Corrections] is confined to an unambiguous sentencing sheet in determining an
inmate's sentence, but may consider the sentencing transcript if the sheet is
ambiguous.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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