Wallace 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
Wallace, 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Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-012

Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January
25, 2012

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Michael Wallace, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Wallace appeals an order of the
Administrative Law Court (ALC), affirming the decision of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (the Department) denying Wallace's inmate grievance. 
On appeal, Wallace argues he was not afforded an opportunity for meaningful
judicial review because the ALC filed the order without allowing Wallace to
file an appellant's brief.  We agree.

The review of the [ALC's] order must be confined to the record. .
. . The court of appeals may affirm the decision or remand the case for further
proceedings; or, it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantive
rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion,
or decision is . . . in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. 

S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010). 

No person shall be finally bound by a judicial or quasi-judicial
decision of an administrative agency affecting private rights except on due
notice and an opportunity to be heard . . . nor shall he be deprived of liberty
or property unless by a mode of procedure prescribed by the General Assembly,
and he shall have in all such instances the right to judicial review. 

S.C. Const. art.
I, § 22.

Our review of the
record indicates the ALC issued the order affirming the Department's denial of
Wallace's inmate grievance without the benefit of Wallace's brief.  When the
ALC issued its order without considering any of Wallace's arguments, Wallace
was denied the opportunity to be heard and was thus deprived of a liberty
interest without judicial review.  See Ross v. Med. Univ. of S.C.,
328 S.C. 51, 68, 492 S.E.2d 62, 71 (1997) (holding article I, section 22 of the
South Carolina Constitution guarantees persons the right to notice and an
opportunity to be heard by an administrative agency); see also S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-500 (Supp. 2010) (explaining the ALC is an agency).  Accordingly,
we reverse and remand[1] with instructions to allow Wallace to file an appellant's brief and proceed
with his appeal before the ALC.

REVERSED AND
REMANDED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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