Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2014-001060 Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-505
11-04-2015
Charles Ray Carter, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Charles Ray Carter, pro se. Daniel John Crooks, III, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
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. Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge
AFFIRMED
Charles Ray Carter, pro se. Daniel John Crooks, III, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2014) ("The 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."); Olson v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 57, 69, 663 S.E.2d 497, 504 (Ct. App. 2008) ("To prevail on a claim of denial of due process, there must be a showing of substantial prejudice."); James Acad. of Excellence v. Dorchester Cty. Sch. Dist. Two, 376 S.C. 293, 299, 657 S.E.2d 469, 472 (2008) (recognizing the State may cure a procedural deprivation of due process by providing a subsequent procedural remedy); State v. Bennett, 375 S.C. 165, 173, 650 S.E.2d 490, 495 (Ct. App. 2007) ("While [CDR] codes were developed and are used to provide an administrative shortcut, they were never intended to replace statutory law."); id. ("Any errors in a CDR code do not affect the crime, its characterization as violent or non-violent, for example, or even if someone can be prosecuted for a crime."); Tant v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 408 S.C. 334, 346, 759 S.E.2d 398, 404 (2014) ("[T]he Department [of Corrections] is confined to an unambiguous sentencing sheet in determining an inmate's sentence, but may consider the sentencing transcript if the sheet is ambiguous."). AFFIRMED. HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. --------