Anders v. South Carolina Parole and Community Corrections Bd., No. 21948
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; LEWIS, C.J., and NESS; NESS; LEWIS |
| Citation | 305 S.E.2d 229,279 S.C. 206 |
| Parties | James C. ANDERS, Solicitor, for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD, William D. Leeke, Commissioner, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellants. and James C. ANDERS, Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Respondents, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD, William D. Leeke, Commissioner, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellants. (two cases) |
| Docket Number | No. 21948 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1983 |
Page 229
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD,
William D. Leeke, Commissioner, of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellants.
and
James C. ANDERS, Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit,
and Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant Solicitor for
the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Respondents,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD,
William D. Leeke, Commissioner, of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections,
Appellants. (two cases)
[279 S.C. 207] Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald J. Zelenka and Larry C. Batson, Columbia, for appellants.
James C. Anders, pro se.
Stanley D. Ragsdale, pro se.
PER CURIAM:
The Plaintiff-Respondent, James C. Anders, in his capacity as Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina, [279 S.C. 208] brought this action seeking to enjoin Defendants-Appellants, South Carolina Parole and Community Corrections Board and William D. Leeke, Commissioner of South Carolina Department of Corrections, from releasing
Page 230
inmates under the Supervised Conditional Release Program developed under § 24-13-710 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1982 Cum.Supp.). Defendants were enjoined by the Circuit Court on May 28, 1982, before any inmate was released under the program. In February, 1982, plaintiffs brought another proceeding, seeking to have defendants held in contempt of court for violating the May 28, 1982 Order of Injunction. The defendants were held in contempt and were further enjoined from releasing any inmate pursuant to any program developed in accordance with § 24-13-710. The defendants appealed both orders. We have consolidated the two cases for the purpose of appeal. We reverse both orders.After the two appeals were docketed in this Court, plaintiff moved, over the objection of the defendants, to amend the original Complaint "... by allowing the addition of another party as Petitioner and Respondent in this action and appeal, to wit, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and to further amend Paragraph One of such Petition to reflect that Stanley D. Ragsdale is a citizen, resident, and taxpayer of Richland County and the State of South Carolina, and is an Assistant Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit." The Motion was granted.
Upon more deliberate consideration, we are of the opinion that the Court improvidently granted the Motion. The Assistant Solicitor was not a party to the litigation in the lower court and the record (except by consent) before us should be the same as that before the trial court. We are of the opinion, however, that the result, with or without the amendment, must be the same.
Code section 24-13-710, here under attack, was adopted by the General Assembly on May 12, 1982, and is usually referred to as the "Supervised Conditional Release Program." It provided for the release of inmates who, among other things, are within six months of the expiration of their sentences or release to probation, who were not imprisoned for the crimes of murder, armed robbery, criminal sexual assault, assault [279 S.C. 209] and battery with intent to kill, or kidnapping, and who have maintained a clear disciplinary record for the preceding six months.
This Code section is one more in a series of statutes enacted by the legislature over the years to provide for the service of less time in prison...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. James, No. 4674.
...are clear and unambiguous, “the Court must apply them according to [their] literal meaning.” Anders v. S.C. Parole & Cmty. Corr. Bd., 279 S.C. 206, 209, 305 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1983). Our research has not revealed any specific South Carolina case law addressing whether a teacher must parti......
-
Bardoon Properties, NV v. Eidolon Corp., No. 24616
...County Recreation District v. City of Columbia 290 S.C. 93, 348 S.E.2d 363 (1986); Anders v. S.C. Parole and Comm. Corrections Board, 279 S.C. 206, 305 S.E.2d 229 (1983). 3 However, the wealth of authority is to the effect that the issue of a party's status as real party in interest does no......
-
South Carolina Pub. Interest Found. v. Greenville Cnty., Appellate Case No. 2010-154507
...Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Harrell, 393 S.C. 552, 560-61, 713 S.E.2d 604, 609 (2011); Anders v. S.C. Parole and Cmty. Corr. Bd., 279 S.C. 206, 209-10, 305 S.E.2d 229, 231 (1983). 4. Article I, § 8 states: "In the government of this State, the legislative, executive, and judicial po......
-
Charleston Television, Inc. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., No. 1210
...under Section 1-23-150 to challenge the regulation in court. Cf., Anders v. South Carolina Parole and Community Corrections Board, 279 S.C. 206, 305 S.E.2d 229 (1983) (where plaintiff lacks standing, court does not have subject matter The wisdom of restricting the right of judicial review o......
-
Brown v. James, No. 4674.
...are clear and unambiguous, “the Court must apply them according to [their] literal meaning.” Anders v. S.C. Parole & Cmty. Corr. Bd., 279 S.C. 206, 209, 305 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1983). Our research has not revealed any specific South Carolina case law addressing whether a teacher must parti......
-
Bardoon Properties, NV v. Eidolon Corp., No. 24616
...County Recreation District v. City of Columbia 290 S.C. 93, 348 S.E.2d 363 (1986); Anders v. S.C. Parole and Comm. Corrections Board, 279 S.C. 206, 305 S.E.2d 229 (1983). 3 However, the wealth of authority is to the effect that the issue of a party's status as real party in interest does no......
-
South Carolina Pub. Interest Found. v. Greenville Cnty., Appellate Case No. 2010-154507
...Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Harrell, 393 S.C. 552, 560-61, 713 S.E.2d 604, 609 (2011); Anders v. S.C. Parole and Cmty. Corr. Bd., 279 S.C. 206, 209-10, 305 S.E.2d 229, 231 (1983). 4. Article I, § 8 states: "In the government of this State, the legislative, executive, and judicial po......
-
Charleston Television, Inc. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., No. 1210
...under Section 1-23-150 to challenge the regulation in court. Cf., Anders v. South Carolina Parole and Community Corrections Board, 279 S.C. 206, 305 S.E.2d 229 (1983) (where plaintiff lacks standing, court does not have subject matter The wisdom of restricting the right of judicial review o......