Anthony Williams, Jr. v. SCDC (2)

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

Anthony Williams, Jr. #285056, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001297

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-397
Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed October 18, 2017

AFFIRMED

Tommy Arthur Thomas, of Irmo, for Appellant.

Kensey Collins, of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Anthony Williams, Jr., an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC), appeals an order of the Administrative Law
Court (the ALC) affirming Williams's disciplinary conviction of Striking an
Employee. On appeal, Williams argues the ALC erred in affirming his conviction
because (1) there was a lack of evidence or failure to follow policy and procedure
and (2) SCDC improperly enhanced his charge from threatening to inflict harm on
a staff member to striking an employee. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Issue 1: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(c), (e) (Supp. 2016) (providing the
court of appeals may reverse or modify the decision of the ALC if the substantive
rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or
decision is "made upon unlawful procedure" or "clearly erroneous in view of the
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record"); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2016) ("The [appellate] court may not substitute its judgment
for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of
fact."); Friends of Earth v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of S.C., 387 S.C. 360, 366, 692
S.E.2d 910, 913 (2010) ("Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla; rather, it is
evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds
to reach the same conclusion as the [ALC]."); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354,
382, 527 S.E.2d 742, 757 (2000) ("Courts traditionally have adopted a 'hands off'
doctrine regarding judicial involvement in prison disciplinary procedures and other
internal prison matters, although they must intercede when infringements
complained of by an inmate reach constitutional dimensions."); id. at 371, 527
S.E.2d at 751 ("[D]ue 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."); id. at 370, 527 S.E.2d at 750
("[C]ourts must balance the demands of the Due Process Clause against the need to
maintain an orderly and safe prison environment."); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 567 (1974) ("Rules of procedure may be shaped by consideration of the risks
of error, and should also be shaped by the consequences which will follow their
adoption." (citations omitted)); id. at 568 ("[A]dequate bases for decision in prison
disciplinary cases can be arrived at without cross-examination.").

2. As to Issue 2: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 371, 527 S.E.2d 742, 751
(2000) ("[D]ue process in a prison disciplinary proceeding involving serious
misconduct requires . . . advance written notice of the charge be given to the

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
inmate at least twenty-four hours before the hearing."); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-
610(B) (Supp. 2016) ("The [appellate] court may not substitute its judgment for the
judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.