Reye Cabrera Pena v. SCDC ( 2022 )

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
Reyes Cabrera Pena, Respondent,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2018-001324
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-373
Submitted September 21, 2022 – Filed October 12, 2022
AFFIRMED
Lake Eric Summers, of Malone Thompson Summers &
Ott, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Reyes Cabrera Pena, pro se.
PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) appeals
an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) reversing and remanding SCDC's
final decision regarding Reyes Cabrera Pena's inmate pay. On appeal, SCDC
argues (1) the procedure by which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with
evidentiary error because the ALC erroneously found the contract between SCDC
and the private industry sponsor was not properly included in the record but then
contradictorily relied upon the contract when it ruled on Pena's claim; (2) the
procedure by which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with evidentiary
error because Pena did not meet the burden mandated by our supreme court in
Torrence v. South Carolina Department of Corrections 1; (3) the procedure by
which the ALC fashioned its ruling was imbued with evidentiary error because the
ALC erroneously failed to remand Pena's back pay claim to SCDC; (4) the ALC
erroneously relied on dicta from Torrence when reversing its denial of Pena's back
pay claim; (5) the ALC erroneously found the workers' compensation premium that
SCDC charged the private industry sponsor was part of Pena's gross wages; (6) the
ALC erroneously found the social security withholding payment that SCDC
charged the private industry sponsor was part of Pena's gross wages; and (7) the
ALC erroneously found the "SCDC/Prison Industries Administrative Cost" that
SCDC charged the private industry sponsor was part of Pena's gross wages. We
affirm. 2
As to issues 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, we hold the ALC did not err in finding the money
SCDC received from the private industry sponsor, including the social security
withholding payment, workers' compensation premium, and the "SCDC/Prison
Industries Administrative Cost," constituted Pena's gross wages. See Kiawah Dev.
Partners, II v. S.C Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 411 S.C. 16, 28, 766 S.E.2d
707, 715 (2014) ("In an appeal from an ALC decision, the Administrative
Procedures Act provides the appropriate standard of review."); 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. 2021]) 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) ("[An appellate] court
may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of
the evidence on questions of fact."); id. (stating, however, when reviewing an ALC
decision, an appellate court "may reverse or modify the 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"); Torrence, 373 S.C. at 594 n.4, 646 S.E.2d at 870 n.4 ("[I]f
[inmates] prove true their allegation that [SCDC] removes any of the money
1
373 S.C. 586, 594 n.4, 646 S.E.2d 866, 870 n.4 (2007).
2
The facts of the case are not in dispute.
remitted by the private industry sponsor and then disburses the percentages listed
in section 24-3-40 [of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021)] based on the lower
rate, [SCDC] would be in violation of the plain language of the statute which
directs it to disburse the money based on the gross wages."); Gatewood v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 416 S.C. 304, 317 n.8, 785 S.E.2d 600, 607 n.8 (Ct. App. 2016)
(noting our supreme court addressed "gross wages" as used in section 24-3-40 in
the footnote in Torrence and finding our supreme court "viewed the amount paid
by the industry sponsor to SCDC as the gross wages").
As to issue 4, we hold the ALC properly relied on the footnote in Torrence when
determining whether the workers' compensation premium, social security
withholding payment, and "SCDC/Prison Industries Administrative Cost" were
part of Pena's gross wages. See Sherlock Holmes Pub, Inc. v. City of Columbia,
389 S.C. 77, 82, 697 S.E.2d 619, 621 (Ct. App. 2010) (expressing reluctance to
disregard rulings that were dicta when the rulings were directly on point); id.(noting "those who disregard dictum, either in law or in life, do so at their peril"
(quoting Yaeger v. Murphy, 291 S.C. 485, 490 n.2, 354 S.E.2d 393, 396 n.2 (Ct.
App. 1987))).
As to issue 1, we hold SCDC failed to show prejudice from any potential error in
the ALC finding the contract was not properly included in the record but
subsequently relying on it when ruling on Pena's claim because SCDC attached the
contract to its brief to the ALC as support for its arguments. See Synder's Auto
World, Inc. v. George Coleman Motor Co., 315 S.C. 183, 186, 434 S.E.2d 310, 312
(Ct. App. 1993) (stating an appellant is required to show both error and prejudice
in order for an appellate court to reverse a court's ruling); see also Erickson v.
Jones St. Publishers, LLC, 368 S.C. 444, 476, 629 S.E.2d 653, 670 (2006) ("[A]
party may not complain on appeal of error . . . which his own conduct has
induced.").
AFFIRMED. 3
GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.
3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.