Daniels 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

Kevin J. Daniels, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002613

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-110 Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed March 2, 2016

AFFIRMED

Kevin J. Daniels, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM: Kevin Daniels appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC's) order affirming the South Carolina Department of Corrections' (SCDC's) decision, which denied Daniels's Step 2 grievance and found he was properly credited for time served. On appeal, Daniels argues (1) SCDC unlawfully imposed a suspended sentence upon him without notice and a hearing, (2) he is entitled to 388

days of time served credited to his concurrent sentences, and (3) SCDC's decision was in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision, in excess of statutory authority of the agency, made upon unlawful procedure, clearly erroneous, or an unwarranted exercise of discretion. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding Daniels was not entitled to 388 days of time served credited to his concurrent sentences: S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-40 (Supp. 2015) ("The computation of time served by prisoners under sentences imposed by the courts of this State must be calculated from the date of the imposition of the sentence."); id. ("[I]n computing the time served by a prisoner, full credit against the sentence must be given for time served prior to trial and sentencing . . . ."); Crooks v. State, 326 S.C. 171, 174-75, 485 S.E.2d 374, 375-76 (1997) (finding an offender could not receive credit for detention before an offense was charged).

2. As to Daniels's remaining issues: West v. Newberry Elec. Coop., 357 S.C. 537, 543, 593 S.E.2d 500, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding an issue neither addressed in the final order nor mentioned in a subsequent Rule 59(e) motion is not preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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