Mawyer v. SCPPP

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

Russell Mawyer, #139176, Appellant,

v.

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

Appellate Case No. 2021-001149

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-135
Submitted February 1, 2023 – Filed April 5, 2023

AFFIRMED

Russell Mawyer, pro se.

Matthew C. Buchanan, of the South Carolina Department
of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Russell Mawyer, pro se, appeals an Administrative Law Court
(ALC) order dismissing his appeal of a South Carolina Department of Probation,
Parole and Pardon Services' (the Department's) decision to deny his request for
parole. On appeal, Mawyer argues the ALC erred in (1) failing to address his
argument that the parole board denied his request for parole for the same reasons it
denied his previous requests for parole and (2) concluding that the Department's
decision was a "routine denial of parole." We affirm.

We hold substantial evidence supports the ALC's finding that the Department did
not err in denying Mawyer parole; to the contrary, there was substantial evidence
the Department followed the requisite procedures and considered the appropriate
factors before making its determination. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp.
2022) ("The review of the [ALC's] order must be confined to the record. The
[appellate] court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as
to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.,
379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Although this court shall
not substitute its judgment for that of the AL[C] as to findings of fact, we may
reverse or modify decisions which are controlled by error of law or are clearly
erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the record as a whole."); id. ("In
determining whether the AL[C]'s decision was supported by substantial evidence,
this court need only find, considering the record as a whole, evidence from which
reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion that the AL[C] reached.");
Cooper v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 377 S.C. 489, 499, 661
S.E.2d 106, 111 (2008) ("[T]he [p]arole [b]oard is the sole authority with respect to
decisions regarding the grant or denial of parole."); id. at 500, 661 S.E.2d at 112
(holding the parole board's decision would "constitute a routine denial of parole
and the ALC would have limited authority to review the decision" if the parole
board "states in its order denying parole that it considered the factors outlined in
section 24-21-640 [of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2022)] and the fifteen
factors published in its parole form").

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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