Anderko v. SLED

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 12, 2018
• Docket: 2018-UP-461
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

Mark Anderko, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001700

Appeal From York County S. Jackson Kimball, III, Special Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-461 Submitted November 1, 2018 – Filed December 12, 2018

AFFIRMED

Clarence Rauch Wise, of Greenwood; and Christopher A. Wellborn, of Christopher A. Wellborn P.A., of Rock Hill, both for Appellant.

Adam L. Whitsett, of South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Felts v. Richland Cty., 303 S.C. 354, 356, 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991) ("A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying issue."); Lozada v. S.C. Law Enf't Div., 395 S.C. 509, 512, 719 S.E.2d 258, 259 (2011) ("Whether an individual must be placed on the sex offender registry is a question of law."); id. ("When reviewing an action at law, our scope of review is limited to the correction of errors of law."); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430(A) (2007) ("Any person, regardless of age, residing in the [s]tate of South Carolina . . . who has been convicted of . . . an offense for which the person was required to register in the state where the conviction or plea occurred, shall be required to register pursuant to the provisions of this article."); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-460(A) (Supp. 2018) ("A person required to register pursuant to this article is required to register biannually for life."); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430(E) to (G) (2007 & Supp. 2018) (allowing removal under any of the following conditions: (1) the offender's underlying conviction was "reversed, overturned, or vacated on appeal and a final judgment has been rendered"; (2) the offender received a pardon based on a finding of not guilty; or (3) if the offender successfully moved for a new trial and obtained a verdict of acquittal); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 295 (1942) ("[E]very state is entitled to enforce in its own courts its own statutes, lawfully enacted."); Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 722 (1988) ("The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel 'a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.'" (quoting Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 501 (1939))).

AFFIRMED.1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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