Harris v. State, 23752
| Decision Date | 06 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 23752,23752 |
| Citation | 309 S.C. 466,424 S.E.2d 509 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Daniel H. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Asst. Appellate Defender Tara Dawn Shurling, of the S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to review the dismissal of petitioner Daniel H. Harris's (Harris) application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Harris alleges that the PCR judge erred in finding that the elimination of his ability to earn work and good behavior credits by the Omnibus Criminal Justice Improvements Act does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States and South Carolina constitutions. We affirm.
Harris pleaded guilty to the February 16, 1971 murder of Betty Bradford and was sentenced to life in prison. At the time Harris committed the offense, prisoners were permitted to accumulate good behavior and work credits. See S.C.Code Ann. § 55-8 to -8.1 (1962 & Supp.1975). In 1986, the legislature enacted the Omnibus Criminal Justice Improvements Act (OCJIA). Act No. 462, 1986 S.C.Acts 2955. Section 27 of the OCJIA amended former S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20 (1985) to prohibit prisoners convicted of murder from receiving work-release credits, good-time credits, or any other credit that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment required by that subsection. Harris applied for post-conviction relief, alleging that the OCJIA is an ex post facto law. On May 23, 1991, the PCR judge ruled that there was no ex post facto violation because the OCJIA is procedural and Harris suffered no prejudice.
On September 23, 1991 we held that a substantive ex post facto violation results from the denial of work credits to prisoners entitled to these credits at the time the offense is committed. See Elmore v. State, 305 S.C. 456, 409 S.E.2d 397 (1991). We granted Harris's petition for writ of certiorari and directed the parties to fully brief the issue of what prejudice, if any, Harris has incurred.
In order for a law to fall within the ex post facto prohibition, it must retroactively apply to events occurring before its enactment and must disadvantage the affected offender. Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987); State v. Huiett, 302 S.C. 169, 394 S.E.2d 486 (1990). Harris contends that he is disadvantaged by the OCJIA because the inability to earn work and good behavior credits for his prison record will make him appear less suitable for parole or preferred prison assignments. 1 We disagree.
The factors considered by the Board of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services (Parole Board) in making its discretionary decision to grant parole are set forth in S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-640 (Supp.1991):
The board must carefully consider the record of any prisoner before, during, and after imprisonment, and no such prisoner may be paroled until it appears to the satisfaction of the board: that the prisoner has shown a disposition to reform; that, in the future, he will probably obey the law and lead a correct life; that by his conduct he has merited a lessening of the rigors of his imprisonment; that the interest of society will not be impaired thereby; and, that suitable employment has been secured for him. The board must establish written specific criteria for the granting of parole and provisional parole. This criteria must reflect all of the aspects of this section and include a review of a prisoner's disciplinary and other records....
Harris asserts that work credits are evidence of productivity and industry, and that their absence from his prison record will negatively affect his future attempts to receive parole. While we agree that work credits may be some evidence of these traits, we cannot say that the absence of work credits from Harris's prison record precludes consideration of his productivity and industry by the Parole Board. Given the comprehensive review required by section 24-21-640, the Parole Board has the duty to garner evidence of Harris's employment history,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The untouchables: the impact of South Carolina's new judicial selection system on the South Carolina Supreme Court, 1997-2003.
...(holding that prisoners are not permitted to have credits applied for good behavior at the beginning of their sentence); Harris v. State, 424 S.E.2d 509, 511 (S.C. 1992) (holding that a defendant is not disadvantaged by not being able to earn good behavior or work credits); Elmore v. State,......