CourtListener 10155239•Pendergrass v. SC Department of Probation, Pardon, and Parole Services
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Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-539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. Dept
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. Dept 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.
Dept 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.