Darrell L. Goss v. SCDC ( 2024 )

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
Darrell Lee Goss, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2023-001546
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Crystal Rookard, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-218
Submitted June 13, 2024 – Filed June 20, 2024
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Darrell Lee Goss, pro se.
Christina Catoe Bigelow, of South Carolina Department
of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Darrell Lee Goss appeals an order from the Administrative Law
Court (ALC) affirming the South Carolina Department of Corrections' (SCDC's)
final decision regarding the calculation of Goss's max-out date. On appeal, Goss
argues the ALC erred by allowing SCDC to extend his sentence beyond the
statutory requirement of 85% of his sentence. We affirm as modified pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR.
We hold the ALC did not err by affirming SCDC's calculation of Goss's max-out
date because the statute requires the service of "at least 85%" before eligibility for
release. Goss pled guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery, and assault and battery
with intent to kill, and the plea court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of
twenty years' imprisonment on each charge with credit for time served since June
15, 2007. Thus, on June 15, 2024, Goss will have served 85% of his sentence.
Although June 15, 2024, is the earliest Goss could be released from prison, Goss
has incurred numerous disciplinary infractions that have resulted in the loss of
good time credit and the forfeiture of credit he would have earned each month he
had an infraction. Therefore, Goss's max-out date is later than June 15, 2024. See
S.C. Dep't of Corr. v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 258, 659 S.E.2d 233, 234 (Ct. App.
2008) ("Section 1-23-610 of the South Carolina Code ([Supp. 2023]) sets forth the
standard of review when the court of appeals is sitting in review of a decision by
the ALC on an appeal from an administrative agency."); § 1-23-610(B) ("[An
appellate] court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as
to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); id. (stating, however, when
reviewing an ALC decision, an appellate court "may reverse or modify the decision
if the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding,
conclusion, or decision is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful
procedure; (d) affected by other error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or
capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise
of discretion"); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-100 (2007) ("For purposes of definition
under South Carolina law, a 'no parole offense' means a class A, B, or C felony or
an offense exempt from classification as enumerated in [s]ection 16-1-10(d)[ of the
South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023)], which is punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment for twenty years or more."), repealed in part by Bolin v. S.C. Dep't
of Corr., 415 S.C. 276, 286, 781 S.E.2d 914, 919 (Ct. App. 2016) (concluding a
second offense under section 44-53-375(B) of the South Carolina Code (2018) is
no longer considered a no parole offense); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-150(A) (Supp.
2023) ("Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . an inmate convicted of a
'no parole offense' as defined in [s]ection 24-13-100 and sentenced to the custody
of [SCDC] . . . is not eligible for early release, discharge, or community
supervision . . . until the inmate has served at least eighty-five percent of the actual
term of imprisonment imposed. This percentage must be calculated without the
application of earned work credits, education credits, or good conduct credits, and
is to be applied to the actual term of imprisonment imposed, not including any
portion of the sentence which has been suspended." (emphasis added)); S.C. Code
Ann. § 24-13-210(B) (Supp. 2023) ("An inmate convicted of a 'no parole offense'
against this State as defined in [s]ection 24-13-100 and sentenced to the custody of
[SCDC], . . . whose record of conduct shows that he has faithfully observed all the
rules of the institution where he is confined and has not been subjected to
punishment for misbehavior, is entitled to a deduction from the term of his
sentence beginning with the day on which the service of his sentence commences
to run, computed at the rate of three days for each month served."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 24-13-230(B) (Supp. 2023) ("The Director of [SCDC] may allow an inmate
sentenced to the custody of [SCDC] serving a sentence for a 'no parole offense' as
defined in [s]ection 24-13-100, who is assigned to a productive duty assignment
. . . or who is regularly enrolled and actively participating in an academic,
technical, vocational training program, a reduction from the term of his sentence of
six days for every month he is employed or enrolled.").
However, we modify the ALC's stated max-out date from October 15, 2024, to
July 15, 2024—the most current date provided in SCDC's August 17, 2023 letter to
the ALC and in SCDC's brief to this court. This date reflects the most current
max-out date supplied to the ALC by SCDC at the time of the filing of the ALC's
order; it is not reflective of any changes to Goss's max-out date since that time.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 1
WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and TURNER, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.