Sullivan 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 Charles Sullivan, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondent. Appeal from the Administrative Law Court Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-157 Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 12, 2011 AFFIRMED Charles Sullivan, pro se, for Appellant. Teresa A. Knox, J. Benjamin Aplin, and Tommy Evans, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Charles Sullivan appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order dismissing his appeal of the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services' (the Department) decision denying him parole. He argues the ALC erred in (1) dismissing his appeal and (2) denying his motion to compel additional evidence for the record. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the ALC erred in dismissing Sullivan's appeal: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2010) (providing that the ALC shall not hear an appeal involving the denial of parole to a potentially eligible inmate by the Department); Compton v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 385 S.C. 476, 479, 685 S.E.2d 175, 177 (2009) (holding that an order denying parole and stating consideration of all statutory and Department criteria is sufficient to avoid deeming an inmate effectively ineligible for parole). 2. As to whether the ALC erred in denying Sullivan's motion to compel additional evidence for the record: Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248, 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding that appellant has the burden of showing that an error was prejudicial). AFFIRMED. FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.