Anderko v. SLED

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

Mark Anderko, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001700

Appeal From York County
S. Jackson Kimball, III, Special Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-461
Submitted November 1, 2018 – Filed December 12, 2018

AFFIRMED

Clarence Rauch Wise, of Greenwood; and Christopher A.
Wellborn, of Christopher A. Wellborn P.A., of Rock Hill,
both for Appellant.

Adam L. Whitsett, of South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Felts v. Richland Cty., 303 S.C. 354, 356, 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991)
("A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined
by the nature of the underlying issue."); Lozada v. S.C. Law Enf't Div., 395 S.C.
509, 512, 719 S.E.2d 258, 259 (2011) ("Whether an individual must be placed on
the sex offender registry is a question of law."); id. ("When reviewing an action at
law, our scope of review is limited to the correction of errors of law."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 23-3-430(A) (2007) ("Any person, regardless of age, residing in the [s]tate
of South Carolina . . . who has been convicted of . . . an offense for which the
person was required to register in the state where the conviction or plea occurred,
shall be required to register pursuant to the provisions of this article."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 23-3-460(A) (Supp. 2018) ("A person required to register pursuant to this
article is required to register biannually for life."); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430(E)
to (G) (2007 & Supp. 2018) (allowing removal under any of the following
conditions: (1) the offender's underlying conviction was "reversed, overturned, or
vacated on appeal and a final judgment has been rendered"; (2) the offender
received a pardon based on a finding of not guilty; or (3) if the offender
successfully moved for a new trial and obtained a verdict of acquittal); Williams v.
North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 295 (1942) ("[E]very state is entitled to enforce in
its own courts its own statutes, lawfully enacted."); Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486
U.S. 717, 722 (1988) ("The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel 'a state to
substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject
matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.'" (quoting Pacific Employers
Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 501 (1939))).

AFFIRMED.1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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