McNeil v. Keel

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
Mansy McNeil, Appellant,
v.
Mark Keel, Director, South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division (SLED) and the State of South Carolina,
Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2015-002449
Appeal From Florence County
D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-194
Submitted April 1, 2017 – Filed May 11, 2017
AFFIRMED
Charles Thomas Brooks, III, of Law Office of Charles T.
Brooks, III, of Sumter, for Appellant.
Adam L. Whitsett, of the South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division, and Senior Assistant Attorney
General T. Parkin C. Hunter, both of Columbia, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing a motion for summary judgment must
be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law"); George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d
868, 874 (2001) ("On summary judgment motion, a court must view the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party."); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-460(A)
(Supp. 2016) ("A person required to register [on the sex offender registry] is
required to register biannually for life." (emphasis added)); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-
3-430 (E), (F), (G) (2007 & Supp. 2016) (setting forth three statutory mechanisms
by which a person's name may be removed from the sex offender registry); Key
Corp. Capital, Inc. v. Cty. of Beaufort, 373 S.C. 55, 59, 644 S.E.2d 675, 677
(2007) ("If a statute's language is plain, unambiguous, and conveys a clear
meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no
right to impose another meaning." (quoting Buist v. Huggins, 367 S.C. 268, 276,
625 S.E.2d 636, 640 (2006))); id. ("[T]his [c]ourt does 'not sit as a superlegislature
to second guess the wisdom or folly of decisions of the General Assembly.'"
(quoting Keyserling v. Beasley, 322 S.C. 83, 86, 470 S.E.2d 100, 101 (1996)));
Regions Bank v. Wingard Props., Inc., 394 S.C. 241, 254, 715 S.E.2d 348, 355 (Ct.
App. 2011) ("It is well known that equity follows the law." (quoting Smith v. Barr,
375 S.C. 157, 164, 650 S.E.2d 486, 490 (Ct. App. 2007))); id. ("When providing an
equitable remedy, the court may not ignore statutes, rules, and other precedent.");
Key Corp. Capital, Inc., 373 S.C. at 61, 644 S.E.2d at 678 ("Indeed, a 'court's
equitable powers must yield in the face of an unambiguously worded statute.'"
(quoting Santee Cooper Resort, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 298 S.C. 179, 185,
379 S.E.2d 119, 123 (1989))).
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.