Hendricks 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

Larry Edward
Hendricks, 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Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-156 

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 12,
2011

AFFIRMED

Larry Hendricks, pro se, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Larry
Edward Hendricks 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.  Hendricks argues that the ALC erred
in (1) dismissing his appeal and (2) failing to consider his motion for
reconsideration.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC
erred in dismissing Hendricks'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
failing to consider Hendricks's motion for reconsideration: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding
that an appellate court need not review remaining issues on appeal when its
determination of a prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

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

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