Meggs v. SCDC

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

Jimmy D. Meggs, Jr. #277400, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000232

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-117
Submitted February 1, 2019 – Filed March 27, 2019

AFFIRMED

Jimmy D. Meggs, Jr., pro se.

Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jimmy Meggs, Jr. appeals the final order of the Administrative
Law Court (ALC) affirming the decision of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (the Department) to deny Meggs's grievance. On appeal, Meggs
argues (1) he is entitled to credit for the time he spent on house arrest due to the
2013 amendment to section 24-13-40 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2018) and
(2) the Department violated his rights to due process and equal protection of the
law. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to Meggs's argument that he is entitled to credit for the time he spent on house
arrest: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(d) (Supp. 2018) ("The review of the [ALC]'s
order must be confined to the record. . . . The court of appeals may affirm the
decision or remand the case for further proceedings; or, it may reverse or modify
the decision if the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because
the finding, conclusion, or decision is . . . affected by other error of law . . . .");
Neel v. Shealy, 261 S.C. 266, 273, 199 S.E.2d 542, 545 (1973) ("In the
construction of statutes[,] there is a presumption that statutory enactments are to be
considered prospective rather than retrospective in their operation unless the
intention to make them retrospective is clearly apparent from the terms thereof.");
S.C. Nat'l Bank v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 297 S.C. 279, 281, 376 S.E.2d 512, 513
(1989) ("Statutes are not to be applied retroactively unless that result is so clearly
compelled as to leave no room for doubt."); Tant v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 408 S.C.
334, 346, 759 S.E.2d 398, 404 (2014) ("[T]he Department is confined to an
unambiguous sentencing sheet in determining an inmate's sentence . . . ."); id. at
341 n.2, 759 S.E.2d at 401 n.2 ("[T]he Department performs an administrative
function in recording an inmate's sentence . . . . The Department has no
independent sentencing authority . . . .").

As to Meggs's argument that his rights to due process and equal protection of the
law were violated: Home Med. Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 382 S.C. 556,
562, 677 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2009) ("As in other appellate matters, [this court]
require[s] issue preservation in administrative appeals."); Brown v. S.C. Dep't of
Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues
not raised to and ruled on by the AL[C] are not preserved for appellate
consideration.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.