Ringstad v. SC PPP

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

Randolph
Ringstad, Appellant,

v.

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

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-350 

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29,
2011

VACATED AND REMANDED

Randolph Ringstad, pro se, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Randolph
Ringstad appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming his
administrative appeal of the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
Services' (the Department) routine denial of his parole.  We vacate[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 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).  We vacate the order of the ALC and remand with
instructions to dismiss the appeal pursuant to section 1-23-600(D).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF, J., and
GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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