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 Tony Moore, Jr., #188313, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000261

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-257 Submitted April 2, 2018 – Filed June 13, 2018

AFFIRMED

Joshua Snow Kendrick, of Greenville, and Christopher Shannon Leonard, of Columbia, both of Kendrick & Leonard, P.C., for Appellant.

Tommy Evans, Jr., of Columbia, of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-640 (Supp. 2017) (The department "must not grant parole nor is parole authorized to any prisoner serving a sentence for a second or subsequent conviction, following a separate sentencing for a prior conviction, for violent crimes as defined in Section 16-1-60."); Furtick v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 352 S.C. 594, 598, 576 S.E.2d 146, 149 (2003) ("[T]he permanent denial of parole eligibility implicates a liberty interest sufficient to require at least minimal due process."); State v. Green, 412 S.C. 65, 84, 770 S.E.2d 424, 434 (Ct. App. 2015) (finding life imprisonment without parole for a second armed robbery conviction pursuant to a recidivist statute was not cruel and unusual punishment for a defendant who was an adult when he committed the second offense but a juvenile when he committed the first); id. at 87, 770 S.E.2d at 436 ("Miller's holding was based, in part, on the 'recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking' of children; however, because Green was not a juvenile at the time he committed the current armed robbery, the policy considerations from Miller are inapplicable." (quoting Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471 (2012))).

AFFIRMED.1 HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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