Stroman 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
Sammie Stroman, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2012-212015
Appeal From the Administrative Law Court
John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-234
Submitted April 1, 2013 – Filed June 5, 2013
AFFIRMED
Sammie Stroman, pro se.
Deputy General Counsel Christopher D. Florian, of South
Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 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) ("[T]he [United States] Supreme Court held
that due 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))).
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.