Sullivan 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

Charles
Sullivan, Appellant,

v.

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

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-157

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 12,
2011

AFFIRMED

Charles Sullivan, pro se, for Appellant.

Teresa A. Knox, J. Benjamin Aplin, and Tommy
Evans, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Charles
Sullivan appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order dismissing his
appeal of the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services' (the Department)
decision denying him parole.  He argues the ALC erred in (1) dismissing his
appeal and (2) denying his motion to compel additional evidence for the record. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC
erred in dismissing Sullivan's appeal:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2010) (providing that the ALC shall not hear an appeal involving the denial of
parole to a potentially eligible inmate by the Department); Compton v. S.C.
Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 385 S.C. 476, 479, 685 S.E.2d
175, 177 (2009) (holding that an order denying parole and stating consideration
of all statutory and Department criteria is sufficient to avoid deeming an
inmate effectively ineligible for parole).

2. As to whether the ALC
erred in denying Sullivan's motion to compel additional evidence for the record:  Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248, 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986)
(holding that appellant has the burden of showing that an error was
prejudicial).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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