Williams 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 Williams, 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 Appeal from the Administrative Law Court Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-216 Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed March 28, 2012 AFFIRMED Charles Williams, pro se. Teresa A. Knox, J. Benjamin Aplin, and Tommy Evans, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Charles Williams appeals the order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) summarily dismissing his appeal of a routine denial of parole. He argues the ALC erred in dismissing his administrative appeal because the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services' (the Department) criteria denied him due process. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2011) (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). AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.