Bryd 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 Willie Byrd, Respondent, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant. Appeal from the Administrative Law Court John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-069 Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed February 16, 2011 AFFIRMED Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Appellant. Willie Byrd, pro se, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: The Department of Corrections (the Department) appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order, arguing the ALC erred in reversing the Department's disciplinary sanctioning of Willie Byrd after a prison disciplinary hearing was held in his absence. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(a), (d) (Supp. 2010) (providing the authority to review decisions of the ALC for "violation[s] of constitutional or statutory provisions" or "other error[s] of law"); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) ("[T]here must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application."); Battle v. Barton, 970 F.2d 779, 782 (11th Cir. 1992) ("[A]n inmate's right to attend a prison disciplinary hearing is one of the essential due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment and recognized in Wolff."); Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 497 (1985) (requiring prison officials to explain in the record reasons that "logically relate[] to preventing undue hazards to institutional safety and correctional goals" (internal quotations omitted)); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 382, 527 S.E.2d 742, 757 (2000) ("[The] Department must create a record and adequately explain its decision to afford meaningful review by the [ALC] . . . [and ultimately] the judicial branch."). The record is devoid of any evidence of institutional safety, needs, or correctional goals. AFFIRMED. THOMAS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.