Deveaux 109601 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

Perry Deveaux, #109601, Appellant,

v.

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

Appellate Case No. 2018-000656

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-042
Submitted January 1, 2020 – Filed February 12, 2020

AFFIRMED

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, of Elizabeth
Franklin-Best, P.C., of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2019) ("The review of the
administrative law [court]'s order must be confined to the record. [An appellate]
court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the administrative law
[court] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); id. (stating an
appellate court may reverse or modify the decision of the ALC if the decision is:
"(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the
statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected
by other error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion"); Cooper v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 377 S.C. 489,
496, 661 S.E.2d 106, 110 (2008) ("Parole is a privilege, not a right."); id. at 499,
661 S.E.2d at 111 ("Undoubtedly, the [p]arole [b]oard is the sole authority with
respect to decisions regarding the grant or denial of parole."); id. at 500, 661
S.E.2d at 112 (explaining that the ALC's review is limited to ascertaining whether
the parole board followed proper procedures when determining parole eligibility);
Compton v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 385 S.C 476, 479, 685
S.E.2d 175, 177 (2009) (holding an order denying parole that shows consideration
of all statutory and Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services criteria is
sufficient to support a denial of parole); Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal &
Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) ("There is no constitutional or inherent right
of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid
sentence.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and HILL, JJ., concur.

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