Hope Academy v. Richland County School District Two

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

Hope Academy
Charter School, Appellant,

v.

Richland County
School District Two, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-080 

Heard January 11, 2012 – Filed February
15, 2012

AFFIRMED

Kirby D. Shealy and Paulette Edwards, both
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Michael H. Montgomery, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In
this administrative action,  Hope Academy Charter School (Academy) appeals the
Administrative Law Court's (ALC) decision to affirm the Richland School
District 2's (District) Board of Trustees' (Board) denial of Academy's charter
application.  Specifically, Academy contends the ALC erred in:  (1) affirming
District's denial of Academy's charter application based on the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence in the record; (2) failing to find District
had violated constitutional or statutory provisions in their denial of
Academy's charter application; and (3) failing to find District exceeded its
statutory authority and/or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner by
employing different standards for Academy's application as opposed to those
used in the review of other applications.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authority:

1.  As to whether the ALC erred in
affirming the District's denial based on the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence in the record, we find there was substantial evidence to
support the ALC's finding Academy's charter application was deficient in the
areas of: (1) facilities and equipment, (2) transportation, (3) educational standards,
and (4) economic plans; additionally, we find the ALC's findings were not
controlled by an error of law.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(d)-(e)
(Supp. 2010) (stating in an appeal of the final decision of an administrative
agency, the standard of appellate review is whether the findings of the ALC are
supported by substantial evidence or affected by other error of law); Sanders
v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App.
2008) (holding that in determining whether the ALC's decision was supported by
substantial evidence, this court need only find evidence from which reasonable
minds could reach the same conclusion that the ALC reached and the mere
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent a finding from being supported by substantial evidence). As to the
ALC's findings that Academy's charter application was deficient in the areas of
support for the school and violation of the spirit and intent of the law, we
find it unnecessary to review those findings.  See Futch v.
McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591,
598 (1999) (ruling an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its
determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).

2.  As to whether the ALC erred in failing
to find District had violated constitutional or statutory provisions in their
denial of Academy's charter application, we find Academy presented no evidence
or examples of District creating requirements for their charter application in
violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-610(B)(a) (Supp. 2010) ("The court of appeals may affirm the
decision [of the ALC] or remand the case for further proceedings; or, it may
reverse or modify the decision if the substantive rights of the petitioner have
been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is: (a) in
violation of constitutional or statutory provisions . . . .").

3.  As to whether the ALC erred in
failing to find District exceeded its statutory authority and/or acted in an
arbitrary or capricious manner by employing different standards for Academy's
application as opposed to those used in review of other applications, Academy
presented no evidence or examples of disparity of treatment between their
charter application and previous charter applications. See S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(f) (Supp. 2010) ("The court of appeals may affirm the
decision [of the ALC] or remand the case for further proceedings; or, it may
reverse or modify the decision if the substantive rights of the petitioner have
been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is . . . arbitrary
or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted
exercise of discretion.")

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.