Opinion ID: 1264719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Propriety of Claim under PCR Act

Text: The State argues that the PCR court erred in allowing respondent's claim to be asserted under the PCR Act because it involves service credit which, pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), is the type of claim that should be reviewed under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). In Al-Shabazz, this Court held that under the PCR statute, PCR is proper only when the applicant mounts a collateral attack challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 367, 527 S.E.2d at 749 (citing S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-20(a)). Nonetheless, the Al-Shabazz Court noted two non-collateral matters specifically listed in Section 17-27-20(a)(5) that are cognizable under the PCR Act: the claim that an applicant's sentence has expired and the claim that an applicant's probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked. [3] Id. at 368, 527 S.E.2d at 749. As for the majority of non-collateral matters, however, Al-Shabazz stated that these claims generally would be decided first by the SCDOC's internal grievance system and then would be subject to review under the APA. Id. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Specifically, the Court noted that [t]hese administrative matters typically arise in two ways: (1) when an inmate is disciplined and punishment is imposed and (2) when an inmate believes prison officials have erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status. Id. The PCR court found that the instant case was distinguishable from Al-Shabazz, which concerned discretionary good-time credits, because this case involved day-for-day time actually served by the inmate. In addition, the PCR court found that where a case involves the expiration of a sentence, Al-Shabazz specifically allowed this type of claim under the PCR Act. We agree with the PCR court that respondent's case encompasses a claim that his sentence had expired. [4] Therefore, this matter was appropriately filed pursuant to the PCR statute. See S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-20(a)(5); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 368, 527 S.E.2d at 749. Accordingly, we affirm the PCR court's ruling on this issue.