Carter v. SCDPPPS ( 2017 )

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
Derek S. Carter, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-001162
Appeal From Richland County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-024
Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017
AFFIRMED
Derek S. Carter, 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: Sea Pines Ass'n for the Prot. of Wildlife, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res.,
345 S.C. 594, 600, 550 S.E.2d 287, 291 (2001) ("To have standing, . . . one must
be a real party in interest."); id. at 601, 550 S.E.2d at 291 ("The party seeking to
establish standing carries the burden of demonstrating each of the three elements
[of standing]."); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (explaining a
party lacks standing if he has sustained no concrete, actual injury in fact).1
AFFIRMED.2
LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We note as an additional sustaining ground, the circuit court properly dismissed
this case because no justiciable controversy existed. See Rule 220(c), SCACR
("The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any
ground . . . appearing in the Record on Appeal."); I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt.
Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 419, 526 S.E.2d 716, 723 (2000) ("[A] respondent . . . may
raise on appeal any additional reasons the appellate court should affirm the
[circuit] court's ruling, regardless of whether those reasons have been presented to
or ruled on by the [circuit] court."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-20 (2005) ("Courts of
record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights,
status[,] and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be
claimed."); Sunset Cay, LLC v. City of Folly Beach, 357 S.C. 414, 423, 593 S.E.2d
462, 466 (2004) ("The Declaratory Judgments Act [(the Act)] is a proper vehicle in
which to bring a controversy before the court when there is an existing controversy
or at least the ripening seeds of a controversy."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-130(2005) ("[The Act] is to be liberally construed and administered."); Sunset Cay,
LLC, 357 S.C. at 423, 593 S.E.2d at 466 ("To state a cause of action under
the . . . Act, a party must demonstrate a justiciable controversy."); id. ("A
justiciable controversy is a real and substantial controversy [that] is appropriate for
judicial determination, as distinguished from a dispute or difference of a
contingent, hypothetical[,] or abstract character." (quoting Power v. McNair, 255
S.C. 150, 154, 177 S.E.2d 551, 553 (1970))).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.