Does South Carolina's parole revocation scheme comply with the constitutional framework?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does South Carolina’s parole revocation scheme comply with this Court’s constitutional framework, where—in every case—indigent inmates are deprived of their right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, where they are not provided with the packet the parole board receives, and where they are not given a meaningful opportunity to speak in their own defense? 2. Due to the inherent delays in post-conviction relief proceedings, which often extend beyond a petitioner’s period of incarceration, does application of the mootness doctrine constitute an inadequate state procedural bar that would prevent future petitioners from receiving relief, given the underlying due process violations in the case at bar remain unaddressed? i