Jeter v. SCDPPPS

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: July 5, 2018
• Docket: 2018-UP-306
• Status: Unpublished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

Alonzo C. Jeter, III, Appellant,

v.

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

Appellate Case No. 2017-000286

Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-306 Submitted June 1, 2018 – Filed July 5, 2018

AFFIRMED

Alonzo C. Jeter, III, pro se.

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: S.C. Dep't of Corrs. v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 258, 659 S.E.2d 233, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) (providing "section 1-23-610 of the South Carolina Code ([Supp. 2017]) sets forth the standard of review when the court of appeals is sitting in review of a decision by the ALC on an appeal from an administrative agency"); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2017) (providing when reviewing an ALC decision, "[t]he court of appeals may . . . reverse or modify the 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"); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-375(C)(1)(b) (2018) (providing a person who is guilty of trafficking methamphetamine or cocaine base between ten and twenty-eight grams must be sentenced to "a term of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than thirty years" for his second offense); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-90(A) (Supp. 2017) (listing a section 44-53-375(C)(1)(b) offense as a Class A felony); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-100 (2007) (providing Class A felonies are no-parole offenses), repealed in part by Bolin v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 415 S.C. 276, 286, 781 S.E.2d 914, 919 (Ct. App. 2016) (holding a second offense under subsection 44-53-375(B) of the South Carolina Code (2018) is no longer considered a no-parole offense).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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