Ringstad v. SC PPP

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 Randolph Ringstad, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondent. Appeal from the Administrative Law Court Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-350 Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29, 2011 VACATED AND REMANDED Randolph Ringstad, pro se, for Appellant. Teresa A. Knox, J. Benjamin Aplin, and Tommy Evans, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Randolph Ringstad appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming his administrative appeal of the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services' (the Department) routine denial of his parole. We vacate[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 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). We vacate the order of the ALC and remand with instructions to dismiss the appeal pursuant to section 1-23-600(D). VACATED AND REMANDED. FEW, C.J., HUFF, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.