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, #80681, Appellant,

v.

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

Appellate Case No. 2018-001557

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-157
Submitted April 1, 2020 – Filed May 27, 2020

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 Administrative Law Court's (the
ALC's) order affirming the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services' (the Department's) decision to deny his parole. On appeal, he
argues the Department violated his right to equal protection by imposing a harsher
punishment on him than other similarly situated persons. We hold Thompson did
not provide substantial evidence to support a showing that similarly situated
persons, charged with murder and sentenced to life, received disparate treatment
from the Department. Therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2019) ("The
review of the [ALC's] order must be confined to the record. The court may not
substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the
evidence on questions of fact."); Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417,
665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Although this court shall not substitute its
judgment for that of the AL[C] as to findings of fact, we may reverse or modify
decisions which are controlled by error of law or are clearly erroneous in view of
the substantial evidence on the record as a whole."); id. ("In determining whether
the AL[C]'s decision was supported by substantial evidence, this court need only
find, considering the record as a whole, evidence from which reasonable minds
could reach the same conclusion that the AL[C] reached."); TNS Mills, Inc. v. S.C.
Dep't of Revenue, 331 S.C. 611, 626, 503 S.E.2d 471, 479 (1998) ("In order to
establish an equal protection violation, a party must show that similarly situated
persons received disparate treatment."); Cooper v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole &
Pardon Servs., 377 S.C. 489, 499, 661 S.E.2d 106, 111 (2008) ( "[T]he [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 (holding the parole board's decision
would "constitute a routine denial of parole and the ALC would have limited
authority to review the decision" if the parole board "states in its order denying
parole that it considered the factors outline in section 24-21-640 and the fifteen
factors published in its parole form").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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