Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-156 - 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Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-156 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.