In 2001, respondent was wrongly requiring the votes of five members of the parole board before it would grant parole; the relevant statute required only a two-thirds vote of the board members present (not two-thirds of the entire seven-member board). The only evidence of the vote count at petitioner’s 2001 parole hearing was that four out of six voting members of the parole board voted to grant parole; respondent admitted in circuit court that the statement of petitioner’s witness was “credible.” On this record, respondent received enough votes to be granted parole in 2001.
We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, which reversed the Administrative Law Court’s decision in favor of petitioner. We remand to respondent to determine petitioner’s parole conditions.
Rose v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-005-20, 8 pp.) (John Kittredge, J.) Appealed from the Administrative Law Court (Deborah Brooks Durden, ALJ) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Travis Dayhuff for petitioner; Matthew Buchanan and Tommy Evans for respondent. S.C. S. Ct.