DiCapua v. SCDPPPS

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

DiCapua v. SCDPPPS

DecidedMay 6, 2015

Docket2015-UP-244

StatusUnpublished

This text of DiCapua v. SCDPPPS (DiCapua v. SCDPPPS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DiCapua v. SCDPPPS, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

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

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-244 Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DiCapua v. SCDPPPS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicapua-v-scdppps-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack