Busby v. Moore

Citation330 S.C. 201,498 S.E.2d 883
Decision Date13 April 1998
Docket NumberNo. 24779.,24779.
PartiesMelvin BUSBY, Bobby Blake, Danny Green, Calvin Rankin, Anthony Simpson, Lee Evans, Ronnie Sullivan, David Capps, Jerry Latimer, Sherman Rider, Rodney T. Arnold, Charles Smith, Freddie Berry, Dale Wright, Eric Sullivan, Charles Lofton, and Timothy Passmore, Applicants, Of whom Melvin Busby, Calvin Rankin, Lee Evans, Sherman W. Rider, Rodney T. Arnold, Charles Lofton are Petitioners, v. Michael MOORE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. and Timothy YOUNG, Norman Sherman, Ronald Jones, George Robinson, Phillip Clay, Brian Mack, Terry Collins, Claude Johnson, David F. King, Derrick Latimer, Mark Cunningham, David Case, Emmanuel Flemming, Clifton Scott, Danny Bailey, Irvin Wilson, Harold Blassingame, Andrew Lusk, George Phillips, James Allen Taylor, and Bobby Gresham, Applicants, Of whom Norman Sherman, Ronald Jones, Phillip Clay, Terry Collins, David F. King, Irvin Wilson, Andrew Lusk, James Allen Taylor, and Bobby Gresham are Petitioners, v. Michael MOORE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. and Michael T. REIDEL, J.B. Hardee, Clary Dillard, Willie Workman, Vincent Brown, Dennis Sullivan, William Smith, Rene Hernandez, Dean B. Hawkins, Richard D. Kidd, John A. Hagood, and Michael Earl Wilson, Applicants, Of whom Dean B. Hawkins and Richard D. Kidd are Petitioners, v. Michael MOORE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Assistant Appellate Defender M. Anne Pearce, South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioners.

Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa N. Cosby, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Applicants, all inmates in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, filed individual applications for post-conviction relief (PCR). Their cases were consolidated, and after a hearing, respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted. Petitioners now seek a writ of certiorari. We grant the writ, dispense with further briefing, and affirm.

Section 24-13-210(A) of the Code states:

A prisoner convicted of an offense against this State, ..., and sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections..., 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 twenty days for each month served. When two or more consecutive sentences are to be served, the aggregate of the several sentences is the basis upon which the good conduct credit is computed.

S.C.Code Ann. § 24-13-210(A) (Supp.1996). Petitioners argue the language of this statute entitles them to have credit for good conduct calculated and applied at the beginning of their sentences. The PCR judge found petitioners misinterpreted the statute. We agree.

The Court's primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly. State v. Baker, 310 S.C. 510, 427 S.E.2d 670 (1993). A statute must receive a practical and reasonable interpretation consonant with the design of the legislature. Id. This Court will reject any interpretation that leads to an unreasonable result. Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Pageland, 321 S.C. 538, 471 S.E.2d 137 (1996).

The language of the statute shows the legislature did not intend for prisoners to get credit for good behavior at the outset of their sentences. The legislature's use of the past tense shows an intent to reward inmates only after they exhibit good behavior; a prisoner may benefit from this section if he or she "has faithfully observed all the rules" and "has not been subjected to punishment for misbehavior."

Furthermore, petitioner's interpretation of the statute leads to results that could not have been intended by the legislature. The calculation advanced by petitioners reduces the time...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Al-Shabazz v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 23 Agosto 1999
    ...because PCR provides an established and uniform process, as well as the availability of appointed counsel. See Busby v. Moore, 330 S.C. 201, 498 S.E.2d 883 (1998) (deciding in PCR actions that inmates are eligible to earn good-time credits when sentence begins to run, but inmates actually e......
  • SC Dept. of Transp. v. Faulkenberry, 3043.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 7 Septiembre 1999
    ...471 (1998). In construing a statute, this court will reject any interpretation that leads to an unreasonable result. Busby v. Moore, 330 S.C. 201, 498 S.E.2d 883 (1998). Further, construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectful cons......
  • Furtick v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, 26270.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 2007
    ...the legislature intended § 24-13-210(A) to reward inmates with good-time credits only after they exhibit good behavior. 330 S.C. 201, 204, 498 S.E.2d 883, 884 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds by Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 369, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000). Additionally, this......
  • State v. Rogers, 25032.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 2000
    ...the death penalty statute, as with any statute, is to ascertain the intention of the General Assembly. See Busby v. Moore, 330 S.C. 201, 203, 498 S.E.2d 883, 884 (1998) ("The Court's primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly."). In 1986, t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT