Allen 178666 v. SCDC ( 2019 )

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
William Allen #178666, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2017-000596
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-410
Submitted November 1, 2019 – Filed December 31, 2019
AFFIRMED
William Allen, pro se.
Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: William Allen appeals an order from the Administrative Law
Court (the ALC) affirming the South Carolina Department of Corrections's
(SCDC's) finding that he is legally incarcerated pursuant to his life sentence. On
appeal, Allen argues he is being held unlawfully because SCDC does not have a
legally valid commitment order. Because the trial court's sentencing order is valid
and Allen has not proved SCDC's finding was not supported by the evidence, we
find substantial evidence supports the ALC's order. Accordingly, we affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Dep't of Corr.
v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 258, 659 S.E.2d 233, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Section
1-23-610 of the South Carolina Code [(Supp. 2019)] sets forth the standard of
review when the court of appeals is sitting in review of a decision by the ALC on
an appeal from an administrative agency."); § 1-23-610(B) (providing "[t]he court
of appeals may . . . reverse or modify the [ALC's] decision if the substantive rights
of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision
is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the
statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected
by other error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion"); 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 [the appellate] court shall not
substitute its judgment for that of the AL[C] as to findings of fact, [it] 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, [the
appellate] 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."); Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm'n, 321 S.C. 219, 226,
467 S.E.2d 913, 917 (1996) ("[T]he burden is on [an] appellant[] to prove
convincingly that the agency's decision is unsupported by the evidence.").
AFFIRMED. 1
HUFF, WILLIAMS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.