Hudson 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

Jasmine Hudson, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-161

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March
7, 2012

AFFIRMED

Jasmine Hudson, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jasmine
Hudson appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order, which affirmed the South Carolina Department
of Corrections's (the Department) decision finding Hudson guilty of assault
and/or battery of an inmate with means and/or intent to kill or injure.  On
appeal, Hudson argues the ALC erred in finding (1) the Department's disciplinary
proceedings did not violate his due process rights and (2) substantial evidence
existed for the hearing officer to find Hudson guilty as charged.  We affirm.[1]

1.  We find Hudson's
arguments regarding the Department's holding of a second hearing on his charge
after the first hearing failed to result in a verdict are without merit and not
preserved for our review.  Hudson's argument that the Department violated its
disciplinary policies by failing to present additional evidence at the second
hearing is without merit.  The policy cited by Hudson specifically states that
it only applies "if the disciplinary conviction was overturned due to
insufficient evidence."  Hudson's first hearing failed to result in a
verdict due to a procedural error, not insufficient evidence.  Additionally, to
the extent Hudson's argument can be read to encompass other grounds for
challenging the second hearing held by the Department, such arguments are not
preserved for our review.  Hudson did not include other grounds for his
challenge to the second hearing in his grievances filed with the Department. 
Further, the ALC does not specifically address any arguments regarding the
second hearing in its order, and it is not clear from the ALC's order that
Hudson raised this issue to the ALC.  Accordingly, this issue is not preserved
for review.  See Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 379, 527
S.E.2d 742, 755 (2000) (finding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the ALC
ordinarily are not preserved for review).    

2.   We find the ALC properly found
substantial evidence existed for the hearing officer to find Hudson guilty.  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 Hudson's disciplinary conviction for assault and/or battery of an
inmate with means and/or intent to kill or injure.  Captain Ricky Grimes
testified he initially identified Hudson as a suspect in the attack after the
victim described one of the perpetrators as having gold teeth.  After observing
Hudson's gold teeth, Captain Grimes presented the victim with a picture of
Hudson, and the victim identified Hudson as the director of the attack.    

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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