Millholland v. SCDC

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

James Michael Millholland, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001765

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-061
Submitted February 14, 2024 – Filed February 21, 2024

AFFIRMED

James Michael Millholland, pro se.

Christina Catoe Bigelow and Kensey Evans, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Michael Millholland appeals a 2022 order from the
Administrative Law Court (ALC) affirming the decision of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (the Department), finding Millholland failed to carry
his burden of proving the Department violated his right to due process when it
charged him a $250 processing fee for the collection of his DNA pursuant to the
State Deoxyribonucleic Acid Identification Record Database Act1 (the Act) when
he alleged he had already submitted a DNA sample following a previous
conviction. On appeal, Millholland argues (1) he has a state-created liberty or
property interest in his inmate trust account, (2) the ALC erred by not holding a
hearing to determine the merits of this case on remand from this court, (3) the ALC
erred in summarily dismissing his appeal to the ALC in its 2020 order, (4) the ALC
has jurisdiction over all inmate grievances that have been properly filed, (5) the
ALC erred when it determined the Department did not err by requiring him to
submit to a second DNA collection, and (6) the ALC erred by finding in its 2020
order that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Millholland's appeal.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold issues 1, 3, 4, and 6 were already addressed by this court during
Millholland's appeal of the ALC's 2020 order. See Millholland v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 436 S.C. 547, 873 S.E.2d 784 (Ct. App. 2022). Additionally, we hold
Millholland abandoned issue 2 by failing to provide any argument or supporting
authority in his appellate brief. See Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 21, 640 S.E.2d
486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding an issue listed in the statement of issues on
appeal but not addressed in the brief is abandoned).

Finally, we hold the ALC did not err by affirming the decision of the Department
because Millholland failed to establish he had previously submitted to collection of
his DNA under the Act—allegedly sometime between 2000 and 2003 when he was
on probation—such that his most recent 2016 DNA collection was duplicative.
See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2023) (setting forth the standard of
review for this court when sitting in review of a decision by the ALC); id. ("The
court of appeals may affirm the decision 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; (b) in excess of the
statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected
by other error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion."); Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231,
234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal of the final decision of an administrative
agency, the standard of appellate review is whether the AL[C]'s findings are
supported by substantial evidence."); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-670(A) (Supp. 2023)

1
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-3-600 to -700 (2007 & Supp. 2023).
("A person who is required to provide a sample pursuant to this article, upon
conviction, pleading guilty or nolo contendere, or forfeiting bond, must pay a two
hundred fifty dollar processing fee which may not be waived by the court.").
Further, even if the 2016 DNA collection was duplicative, the Act provides that
another sample may be required if the original sample is lost, damaged,
contaminated, or unusable for examination, and there is no evidence in the record
to support that the alleged first collection was suitable. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 23-3-620(E) (Supp. 2023) ("A person required to provide a sample pursuant to
this section may be required to provide another sample if the original sample is
lost, damaged, contaminated, or unusable for examination prior to the creation of a
DNA record or DNA profile suitable for inclusion in the State DNA Database.").

AFFIRMED. 2

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.