Terry Bo Smith v. SCDC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Terry Bo Smith, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2019-001291 Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., Administrative Law Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-129 Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed March 23, 2022 AFFIRMED Terry Bo Smith, pro se. Annie Laurie Rumler, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Terry Bo Smith appeals an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) affirming the South Carolina Department of Correction's (SCDC's) final decision regarding the calculation of his sentence. On appeal, Smith argues the ALC erred in affirming SCDC's calculation of his sentence when SCDC did not give him credit for all of the time he spent on parole for an unrelated offense. Because Smith has completed the sentence for which he argues he should have received credit, we hold his argument is moot. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: See Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25, 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("Generally, [an appellate 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 . . . ."); id. at 26, 630 S.E.2d at 477 ("A moot case exists where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court."). AFFIRMED.1 WILLIAMS, C.J., MCDONALD, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.