Lanier v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.
Decision Date | 07 December 2022 |
Docket Number | 2022-UP-442,Appellate Case 2020-001628 |
Parties | Hardy Marvin Lanier, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. |
Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
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.
Submitted November 1, 2022
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Ralph King Anderson, III Administrative Law Judge
Trent Neuell Pruett, of Pruett & Cook Law Firm, P.C., of Gaffney, for Appellant.
Imani Diane Byas, of South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, of Columbia, for Respondent.
Hardy Marvin Lanier appeals an order from the Administrative Law Court (ALC) affirming the denial of an inmate grievance he filed with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). Lanier argues the ALC erred in declining to reverse SCDC's determination that he was required to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before he was eligible for parole. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Dep't of Corr. 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. 2022]) 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"); § 1-23-610(B) ( ); Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79 88, 533 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2000) (); Seels v. Smalls, 437 S.C. 167, 176-77, 877 S.E.2d 351, 356 (2022) ("Rather, statutes touching upon the same subject matter must be read in harmony to give effect to each whenever possible, as it is presumed that the legislature is familiar with prior legislation and, if it intended to repeal an existing law, it would expressly do so."); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-375(C)(2)(a) (2018) ( ); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-90(B) (Supp. 2022) ( ); § 44-53-375(F) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial