White v. SCDPPP

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 Amri White, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, Respondent. Appeal From Administrative Law Court Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-055 Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed February 15, 2011 APPEAL DISMISSED Amri White, pro se, for Appellant. Tommy Evans, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Amri White, an inmate who had been incarcerated with the Department of Corrections, appeals the administrative law court's (ALC) dismissal of his appeal. On appeal, White argues the ALC erred in dismissing his appeal because the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services unlawfully modified the frequency of his parole hearings and denied him supervised furlough. Because White was released from the Department's custody on July 1, 2010, we dismiss[1] this appeal as moot because addressing the issues raised will have no practical effect on the parties involved in this appeal. See Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 714-15 (1973) (holding an issue is moot when a judgment on the issue will have no practical effect on the existing case or controversy). APPEAL DISMISSED. HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.