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Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-596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Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled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.