Bagley v. SCDPPPS

2016-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

Bernard Bagley, Appellant,

v.

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

Appellate Case No. 2015-000478

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-210
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed May 11, 2016

AFFIRMED

Bernard Bagley, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM: Bernard Bagley, pro se, appeals an order by the Administrative
Law Court (ALC) affirming the Parole Board's (the Board) January 14, 2015 denial
of his parole. Bagley argues the ALC erred by failing to (1) find the Board
improperly considered his 2012 parole denial as a factor in reaching its decision at
his 2015 parole hearing; (2) find the Board was required to consider criminal risk
factors pursuant to section 24-21-5(2) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015);
(3) find the Board's notice of rejection did not include findings related to the
criminal risk factors outlined in section 24-21-5(2); (4) find he was physically and
emotionally impaired at his parole hearing; (5) find the Board erred by declining to
consider him for parole pursuant to section 24-21-700 of the South Carolina Code
(2007); (6) find the Board violated section 24-21-640 of the South Carolina Code
(Supp. 2015) by not considering him for parole every two years; (7) find his
prehearing investigation was incomplete and the Board's decision was made
without all mitigating evidence; (8) find the Board failed to demonstrate a rational
nexus between the factors it used to deny his parole and his actual risk of
reoffending; (9) find the Board violated his Equal Protection rights and the
Americans with Disabilities Act; and (10) follow proper procedure in dismissing
his appeal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

As to Issues 1, 2, and 3: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2015) ("The court
of appeals . . . may reverse or modify the [ALC's] decision if the substantive rights
of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision
is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the
statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected
by other error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."
(emphasis added)).

As to Issues 4, 7, and 9: State v. Lindsey, 394 S.C. 354, 363, 714 S.E.2d 554, 558
(Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on
appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority.").

As to Issue 5: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2015) ("An administrative
law judge shall not hear . . . an appeal involving the denial of parole to a
potentially eligible inmate by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
Services."); Howard v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 399 S.C. 618, 630, 733 S.E.2d 211, 218
(2012) ("[A] matter is reviewable by the ALC where an inmate's appeal also
implicates a state-created liberty or property interest . . . .").

As to Issue 6: Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d
713, 715 (1973) ("[An issue] becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have
no practical legal effect upon existing controversy. This is true when some event
occurs making it impossible for [the] reviewing [c]ourt to grant effectual relief.").

As to Issue 8: § 1-23-600(D) ("An administrative law judge shall not hear . . . an
appeal involving the denial of parole to a potentially eligible inmate by [the
Department]."); Howard, 399 S.C. at 630, 733 S.E.2d at 218 ("[A] matter is
reviewable by the ALC where an inmate's appeal also implicates a state-created
liberty or property interest . . . ."); Lindsey, 394 S.C. at 363, 714 S.E.2d at 558
("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the
argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority.").

As to Issue 10: Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248, 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986)
(ruling an appellant has the burden of showing to a reviewing court that an error is
prejudicial).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, LOCKEMY, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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