Pendergrass v. SC Department of Probation, Pardon, and Parole Services

CourtListener 10155239ScctappSep 17, 2008

Full text

THIS
OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Phillip J.
Pendergrass, Appellant,

v.

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

Appeal from Administrative Law Court

 John D. Geathers, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-539

Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed September
17, 2008  

AFFIRMED

Phillip J. Pendergrass, of Bennettsville, pro
se, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Pendergrass was convicted for
murder in 1976.  He appeals the dismissal of his appeal by the Administrative Law Court. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Sullivan v. S. C. Dep’t
of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 443 n.
4, 586 S.E.2d 124, 127 n.4 (2003) (“[A]n inmate has a right of review by the
AL[C] after a final decision he is ineligible for parole, but that a
parole-eligible inmate does not have the same right of review after a decision
denying parole . . . .”) (emphasis
in original); Slezak v. S. C. Dep’t of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605
S.E.2d 506, 507 (2004)  (holding
while the “AL[C] has subject matter
jurisdiction to hear appeals from the final decision of the [Department of
Corrections] in a non-collateral or administrative matter,” those
matters can still be summarily dismissed where there is no state-created
liberty or property interest implicated); Furtick v. S.C.
Dep’t of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 352 S.C. 594, 598 n. 4, 576 S.E.2d 146, 149, n. 4 (2003) (holding
although an inmate has a liberty interest in parole eligibility, the statute
governing that process does not create an interest in the granting of parole
itself).

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.