Michael Todd v. SC Dept of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services

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 Michael Todd, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondent. Appeal From Administrative Law Court Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-596 Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed December 15, 2009 Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled February 22, 2010 Affirmed Michael Todd, pro se, for Appellant. J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Michael Todd appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) decision affirming the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services' determination that he is eligible for parole reconsideration every two years. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether Todd's right to due process was violated: Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) (finding if an issue is raised but not ruled upon, the party who raised the issue must file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to preserve the issue for appellate review); Home Medical Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 382 S.C. 556, 563, 677 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2009) (holding "Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motions are permitted in ALC proceedings"). 2. As to whether Todd was denied proper discovery: Elam, 361 S.C. at 24, 602 S.E.2d at 780 (finding if an issue is raised but not ruled upon, the party who raised the issue must file a Rule 59(e) motion to preserve the issue for appellate review). 3. As to whether the ALC erred in finding there was no ex post facto violation: James v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 376 S.C. 392, 398, 656 S.E.2d 399, 403 (Ct. App. 2008) (finding "because [appellant] remain[ed] subject to biannual parole reviews, as was the law in 1978, there is no ex post facto violation in this case"). Affirmed. SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.