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Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-216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.