Bryd 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

Willie Byrd, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Appellant.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-069

Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed February
16, 2011

AFFIRMED

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Willie Byrd, pro se, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The
Department of Corrections (the Department) appeals the Administrative Law
Court's (ALC) order, arguing the ALC erred in reversing the Department's disciplinary
sanctioning of Willie Byrd after a prison disciplinary hearing was held in his
absence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(a), (d) (Supp. 2010) (providing the authority to review
decisions of the ALC for "violation[s] of constitutional or statutory
provisions" or "other error[s] of law"); Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) ("[T]here must
be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the
provisions of the Constitution that are of general application."); Battle
v. Barton, 970 F.2d 779, 782 (11th Cir. 1992) ("[A]n inmate's right to attend a prison disciplinary hearing is
one of the essential due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth
Amendment and recognized in Wolff."); Ponte v. Real,
471 U.S. 491, 497 (1985)  (requiring prison officials
to explain in the record reasons that "logically relate[] to preventing
undue hazards to institutional safety and correctional goals" (internal
quotations omitted)); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 382, 527
S.E.2d 742, 757 (2000) ("[The] Department must create a record and adequately explain its
decision to afford meaningful review by the [ALC] . . . [and ultimately] the
judicial branch.").  The record is devoid of any evidence of institutional
safety, needs, or correctional goals.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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