Thompson v. SCDPPPS

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

Thomas Thompson, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002712

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-085
Submitted December 1, 2014 – Filed February 25, 2015

AFFIRMED

Thomas Thompson, pro se.

Tommy Evans, Jr., of the South Carolina Department of
Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Thompson appeals the order of the Administrative Law
Court (ALC) affirming the denial of his parole and dismissing his appeal with
prejudice, arguing (1) the ALC erred in dismissing his appeal and (2) that by
denying him parole, the Parole Board violated his rights to equal protection and to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in summarily dismissing Thompson's appeal with
prejudice, we find the summary dismissal did not violate Thompson's due process
and judicial review rights. See Cooper v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon
Servs., 377 S.C. 489, 500, 661 S.E.2d 106, 112 (2008) ("[T]he Parole Board may
avoid [reversal] if it clearly states in its order denying parole that it considered the
factors outlined in section 24-21-640 [of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2013)]
and the fifteen factors published in its parole form. If the Board complies with this
procedure, the decision will constitute a routine denial of parole and the ALC
would have limited authority to review the decision to determine whether the
Board followed proper procedure. Under that scenario, the ALC can summarily
dismiss the inmate's appeal.").

2. As to whether the Parole Board violated Thompson's rights to equal protection
and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by denying him parole, we find
this issue unpreserved because the ALC did not rule on it and the insufficient
record on appeal does not allow this court to determine whether it was raised to the
ALC. See Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560
S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues not raised to and ruled on by the AL[C] are not
preserved for appellate consideration."); Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate
court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal.");
Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 339, 611 S.E.2d 485, 487-88
(2005) (noting the appellant has the burden of establishing a sufficient record and
declining to address the merits of an issue where the facts underlying the claim
were not included in the record).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.