White 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

Amri White, Appellant,

v.

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

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative
Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-055

Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed
February 15, 2011

APPEAL DISMISSED

Amri White, pro se, for Appellant.

Tommy Evans, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Amri White, an inmate who had been incarcerated with the
Department of Corrections, appeals the administrative law court's (ALC) dismissal
of his appeal.  On appeal, White argues the ALC erred in dismissing his appeal
because the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services unlawfully
modified the frequency of his parole hearings and denied him supervised
furlough.  Because White was released from the Department's custody on July 1,
2010, we dismiss[1] this appeal as moot because addressing the issues raised will have
no practical effect on the parties involved in this appeal.  See Mathis
v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 714-15
(1973) (holding an issue is moot when a judgment on the issue will have no
practical effect on the existing case or controversy). 

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HUFF,
SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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