DiCapua v. SCDPPPS

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

Jeremiah DiCapua, Appellant,

v.

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

Appellate Case No. 2014-001097

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-244
Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015

AFFIRMED

Jeremiah DiCapua, pro se.

Assistant General Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., of the
South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Dicapua v. State, Op. No. 2014-UP-432 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Nov. 26,
2014) (reversing a circuit court order granting DiCapua post-conviction relief for
convictions of distribution of crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute
crack cocaine); Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25, 630 S.E.2d 474,
477 (2006) ("Generally, [a court] only considers cases presenting a justiciable
controversy."); id. ("A justiciable controversy exists when there is a real and
substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as
distinguished from a dispute that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract."); Curtis
v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("An appellate court will
not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there
remains no actual controversy."); McClam v. State, 386 S.C. 49, 55, 686 S.E.2d
203, 206 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[M]oot appeals result when intervening events render a
case nonjusticiable." (alteration by court) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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