Green v. SCDC

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 22, 2012
• Docket: 2012-UP-096
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

Jakaya Green, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant.

---

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Shirley J. Robinson, Administrative Law Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-096
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 22, 2012   

---

REVERSED

---

Michael Vincent Laubshire, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Jakaya Green, pro se.

PER CURIAM: The Department of Corrections (the Department) appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order reversing Jakaya Green's conviction for possession of a cell phone.  The Department argues the ALC erred in reversing Green's conviction because the conviction was supported by substantial evidence.  In this case, the ALC sat in an appellate capacity, not as a factfinder, and because substantial evidence supported the Department's decision, we reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: MRI at Belfair, LLC v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 1, 6, 664 S.E.2d 471, 474 (2008) ("As to factual issues, judicial review of administrative agency orders is limited to a determination whether the order is supported by substantial evidence."); State v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 202, 284 S.E.2d 773, 774 (1981) (stating possession may be proven by actual or constructive possession and knowledge of the contraband's presence); id. at 203, 284 S.E.2d at 775 ("Where contraband materials are found on premises under the control of the accused, this fact in and of itself gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury."); State v. Williams, 346 S.C. 424, 430-31, 552 S.E.2d 54, 57-58 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding inmate in constructive possession of marijuana when found in the inmate's assigned locker). 

REVERSED.[1]

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, J.J., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.