From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dicapua v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 6, 2015
Appellate Case No. 2014-001097 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 6, 2015)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2014-001097 Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-244

05-06-2015

Jeremiah DiCapua, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondent.

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.


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. Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

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. THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Dicapua v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 6, 2015
Appellate Case No. 2014-001097 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Dicapua v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs

Case Details

Full title:Jeremiah DiCapua, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Probation…

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: May 6, 2015

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2014-001097 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 6, 2015)