Full text
DiCapua v. SCDPPPS
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
Jeremiah DiCapua, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001097
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-244 Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015
AFFIRMED
Jeremiah DiCapua, pro se.
Assistant General Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Dicapua v. State, Op. No. 2014-UP-432 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Nov. 26, 2014) (reversing a circuit court order granting DiCapua post-conviction relief for
convictions of distribution of crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine); Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25, 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("Generally, [a court] only considers cases presenting a justiciable controversy."); id. ("A justiciable controversy exists when there is a real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from a dispute that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract."); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("An appellate court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy."); McClam v. State, 386 S.C. 49, 55, 686 S.E.2d 203, 206 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[M]oot appeals result when intervening events render a case nonjusticiable." (alteration by court) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.1
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.