McKinnedy 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

William McKinnedy, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-400 

Submitted August 15, 2011 – Filed August
22, 2011

AFFIRMED

William C. McKinnedy, III, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  William C. McKinnedy, III, appeals the Administrative
Law Court's (ALC) order affirming the Department of Corrections' (the
Department) correction of his sentence classification.  He argues he was denied
due process of law when the Department recalculated his sentence after an audit
revealed his offense was a no parole offense.[1] 
We affirm,[2] finding substantial evidence supports the ALC's decision McKinnedy was not
deprived of a liberty interest and thus not denied due process of law.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (limiting reversal of an ALC decision
unless "in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . [or]
clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
on the whole record"); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (guaranteeing due
process of law only when the deprivation of life, liberty, or property is at
stake).

AFFIRMED.

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

[1] McKinnedy's remaining arguments are unpreserved for
our review because they were never ruled on by the ALC.  State v. Al-Shabazz,
338 S.C. 354, 379, 527 S.E.2d 742, 755 (2000) ("Consequently, issues or
arguments that were not raised to and ruled on by the [ALC] ordinarily are not
preserved for review.").

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