Clems v. SCDPPP

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

Thomas L.
Clems, Appellant,

v

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

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

 Deborah B. Durden, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-314

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 15,
2010   

Affirmed

Thomas L. Clems, pro se, of Ridgeland, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: Thomas L. Clems appeals the South Carolina Parole Board's (the Board) denial of
his parole, arguing the Board failed to comply with Cooper v. South Carolina Department of Probation,
Parole and Pardon Services. 377 S.C.
489, 661 S.E.2d 106 (2008).[1] 
We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authority: Compton v.
S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 385 S.C. 476, 479, 685 S.E.2d 175, 179 (2009)
(holding an order denying parole is sufficient under Cooper if it states
the Board considered the statutory criteria in section 24-21-640 of the South
Carolina Code (2007) and parole form 1212). 

Affirmed.

FEW, C.J., WILLIAMS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1] We decline to address Clems's remaining issue because
our holding that the order denying his parole was sufficient under Cooper is dispositive.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.,
335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (finding
this court need not address issues when its determination of a prior issue is
dispositive).

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