Green 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

Jakaya Green, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Appellant.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Shirley J. Robinson, Administrative Law
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-096

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 22, 2012   

REVERSED

Michael Vincent Laubshire, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Jakaya Green, pro se.

PER CURIAM: The Department of Corrections (the
Department) appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order reversing Jakaya
Green's conviction for possession of a cell phone.  The Department argues the
ALC erred in reversing Green's conviction because the conviction was supported
by substantial evidence.  In this case, the ALC sat in an appellate
capacity, not as a factfinder, and because substantial evidence supported the
Department's decision, we reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities: MRI at Belfair, LLC v. S.C. Dep't of Health &
Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 1, 6, 664 S.E.2d 471, 474 (2008) ("As to
factual issues, judicial review of administrative agency orders is limited to a
determination whether the order is supported by substantial evidence."); State
v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 202, 284 S.E.2d 773, 774 (1981) (stating
possession may be proven by actual or constructive possession and knowledge of
the contraband's presence); id. at 203, 284 S.E.2d at 775 ("Where
contraband materials are found on premises under the control of the accused,
this fact in and of itself gives rise to an inference of knowledge and
possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury."); State
v. Williams, 346 S.C. 424, 430-31, 552 S.E.2d 54, 57-58 (Ct. App. 2001)
(finding inmate in constructive possession of marijuana when found in the
inmate's assigned locker). 

REVERSED.[1]

FEW, C.J.,
HUFF and SHORT, J.J., concur.

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