Jones 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

Michael Jones, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002231

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-053
Submitted December 1, 2014 – Filed January 28, 2015

AFFIRMED

Michael Jones, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian and Daniel John Crooks, III, both
of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Jones, an inmate incarcerated with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC), appeals the Administrative Law Court's
(ALC's) dismissal of his appeal from a prison disciplinary conviction for
possession of a cell phone, arguing he was not afforded due process in his
disciplinary hearing because he was not allowed to call a witness and because his
written confession, which he denied writing, was used at the hearing. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether SCDC prevented Jones from calling a witness: Sanders v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an
appeal of the final decision of an administrative agency, the standard of appellate
review is whether the AL[C]'s findings are supported by substantial evidence."); id.
("Although this court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the AL[C] as to
findings of fact, we may reverse or modify decisions which are controlled by error
of law or are clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the record as
a whole."); id. ("In determining whether the AL[C]'s decision was supported by
substantial evidence, this court need only find, considering the record as a whole,
evidence from which reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion that the
AL[C] reached."); 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: (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." (citing Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974))).

2. As to whether the reference to Jones's alleged confession violated his due
process rights: Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519,
560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues not raised to and ruled on by the AL[C] are
not preserved for appellate consideration."); Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he
appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the [r]ecord on
[a]ppeal."); Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 339, 611 S.E.2d
485, 487-88 (2005) (noting the appellant has the burden of establishing a sufficient
record and declining to address the merits of a claim when the facts underlying the
claim are not included in the record).
AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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