Best v. Glover

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

Hartford R. Best, Appellant,

v.

Samuel B. Glover, Director of the South Carolina
Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Board,
Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-184506

Appeal From Richland County
L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-194
Submitted March 1, 2013 – Filed May 15, 2013

APPEAL DISMISSED

Hartford Best, pro se.

Tommy Evans, Jr., of the South Carolina Department of
Probation, Parole and Pardon Board, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Because a procedural defect precludes meaningful review of this
appeal, we dismiss pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority:
Rule 211(b), SCACR (requiring the content of a party's final brief to be identical to
the initial brief, with the exception of including references to the record on appeal
and correcting obvious typographical errors and misspellings contained in the
initial brief).1

APPEAL DISMISSED.2

FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1
We also find the appeal fails on the merits because Best did not demonstrate the
lack of any other legal remedy. See Redmond v. Lexington Co. Sch. Dist., 314 S.C.
431, 437, 445 S.E.2d 441, 445 (1994) (providing to obtain a writ of mandamus, the
applicant must show the co-existence of four elements, including a lack of any
other legal remedy). Best's failure to seek post-conviction relief warranted
dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-
20(a)(5) (2003) (providing post-conviction relief is the exclusive remedy for
challenging the parole board unlawfully revoked a person's parole).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.