McFadden v. SCDC ( 2017 )

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
Bernard McFadden, #199135, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2016-000431
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-054
Submitted December 1, 2016 – Filed January 25, 2017
AFFIRMED
Bernard McFadden, pro se.
Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Bernard McFadden appeals the Administrative Law Court's (the
ALC's) order dismissing his inmate grievance, alleging the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC) failed to apply jail time credits to his sentence
for his 1995 convictions and miscalculated his projected max-out date. On appeal,
McFadden argues the ALC erred by (1) finding the issue moot and (2) finding it
lacked jurisdiction to decide whether SCDC miscalculated his 1995 sentence. We
affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. The ALC did not err in finding the issue of whether McFadden was entitled to
credit for time served on his 1995 convictions moot because McFadden was
released on August 31, 2007. See Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C.
344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973) ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if
rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon [any] existing controversy. This
is true when some event occurs making it impossible for [the] reviewing [c]ourt to
grant effectual relief."); Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25, 630
S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("A justiciable controversy exists when there is a real and
substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as
distinguished from a dispute that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract."); Nelson
v. Ozmint, 390 S.C. 432, 434, 702 S.E.2d 369, 370 (2010) ("[P]etitioner was
released from SCDC . . . making his underlying claim moot.").
2. The ALC did not err in finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider any collateral
attack on McFadden's 2010 conviction and sentence. See S.C. Code Ann § 1-23-
610(B) (Supp. 2016) (allowing an appellate court to reverse or remand the ALC's
decision if its findings are affected by error of law or are characterized by abuse of
discretion); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508
(2004) ("Summary dismissal may be appropriate whe[n] the inmate's grievance
does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest."); Sullivan v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437, 443, 586 S.E.2d 124, 127 (2003) (stating the only
way the ALC can obtain subject matter jurisdiction over an inmate's grievance
claim is when the grievance "implicates a [state-created] liberty interest sufficient
to trigger procedural due process guarantees"); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354,
367, 527 S.E.2d 742, 749 (2000) (finding PCR is the proper avenue of relief when
the applicant mounts a collateral attack challenging the validity of his sentence or
conviction).
AFFIRMED.
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.