Did a South Carolina prisoner receive credit for pretrial jail time despite a no-credit sentence?

Plain-English summary

In 2011, a Darlington County detention officer described a defendant ordered to serve thirty days with no credit for time served. The defendant had already spent twenty days in jail before posting bond and was not serving another sentence at the time. The South Carolina Attorney General said the statute required credit for those twenty days in the absence of either exception. The request established that the defendant was not serving another sentence, but did not address the escapee exception. The opinion relied on a state appellate decision holding that a judge could not deny pretrial credit unless the prisoner had escaped from another institution or was already serving a sentence for a different offense.

The AG separated the legal entitlement to credit from the jailer's authority. The office could not instruct the detention center to release a prisoner without a court order. A jail administrator's role was to comply with commitment orders, and a prisoner alleging confinement beyond the legal maximum would have to seek a remedy from a court.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later
AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current
legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy
mentioned here.

Common questions

Did a no-credit sentence erase the defendant's twenty pretrial jail days? A: The AG said no on the facts described. The statute required full credit in the absence of either exception. The request established only that the defendant was not serving another sentence.

What exceptions did the opinion identify?
A: It quoted exceptions for a prisoner who was an escapee when jailed before trial and for someone already serving a sentence for one offense while awaiting trial and sentencing for another.

Could the detention center release the prisoner based on the AG's conclusion? A: No. The opinion said the jail had to follow court commitment orders and the AG could not direct release. It identified court remedies for a prisoner who believed he was held beyond the lawful term.

Background and statutory framework

The request asked about Section 24-13-40 after a no-credit, consecutive thirty-day sentence. The AG applied the statute's mandatory pretrial-credit language and the South Carolina Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Boggs. It treated the defendant's earlier twenty-day detention and lack of another sentence as relevant facts, while leaving release or correction of a court order to judicial process.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted Section 24-13-40 and discussed State v. Boggs on mandatory credit for time served before trial.

Official title

Concerning the applicability of S.C. Code Ann. §24-13-40 (Supp. 2010).

Requester

Captain Waddell Coe, Darlington County Detention Center

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-8-2011/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/coe-w-os-9199-2-8-11-magistrate-order-no-credit-f.pdf

Original opinion text

ALANWfLSON
A 'ITORNEY G ENERAL

February 8, 2011

Captain Waddell Coe
Darlington County Detention Center
2349 Rogers Road
Darlington, SC 29532
Dear Captain Coe:
You have requested an opinion of this Office concerning the applicability of S.C. Code Ann. §24-13-40 (Supp. 2010). By way of background, you indicate that a defendant was sentenced to thirty (30) days confinement with no credit for time served, and that the sentence was ordered to run consecutive to any other sentence. The defendant was booked and detained in your facility for twenty (20) days until he posted bond. Pursuant to a telephone conversation with you on February 4, 2011, you further indicated the defendant was not serving a sentence for a different offense at the time of his incarceration. Section 24-13-40 states: The computation of the 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. ... In every case in computing the time served by a prisoner, fulJ credit against the sentence must be given for time served prior to trial and sentencing. Provided, however, that credit for time served prior to trial and sentencing shall not be given: (1) when the prisoner at the time he was imprisoned prior to trial was an escapee from another penal institution; or (2) when the prisoner is serving a sentence for one offense and is awaiting trial and sentence for a second offense in which case he shall not receive credit for time served prior to trial in a reduction of his sentence for the second offense. The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently affirmed that §24-13-40 "mandates prisoners receive full credit for the time they served prior to trial," unless one of the two exceptions exist, either (1) the prisoner was an escapee or (2) the prisoner was already

REMBERT

c. D ENNIS B UlLDING • Posr OFFICE B ox 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMJLE 803-253-6283

Captain Coe
Page 2
February 4, 2011
serving a sentence on a different offense. State v. Boggs, 388 S.C. 314, 696 S.E.2d 597, 598 (Ct. App. 2010)[emphasis added]. "Because the language of [the Section] is mandatory, a judge cannot deny a defendant credit for time served prior to trial unless one of the two exceptions applies." Id. [citing State v. McCord, 349 S.C. 477, 562 S.E.2d 689, 694 (Ct. App. 2002)]. The Boggs decision is consistent with previously issued opinions of this Office dated March 27, 1974, and June 8, 1999, related to your question. I have attached copies of those opinions for your review. Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that, given the facts outlined in your request, a defendant who was detained twenty (20) days in your facility must be given credit for time served, in the absence of any of the exceptions set forth in §24-13-40. Of course, this Office is not authorized to instruct any detention facility to release a prisoner without a court order. We have previously opined that the duty of a jail administrator or officer is ministerial in nature and is strictly limited to compliance with the court's commitment orders. Op. Atty. Gen. May 8, 1995; Op. Atty. Gen. March 27, 1995. Law enforcement officers would have no discretion to determine the disposition of prisoners in their custody. Therefore, in circumstances in which a prisoner alleges he is being held beyond the statutory maximum, the appropriate course of action would be for the defendant to seek judicial remedy in the courts. The defendant could either seek a reduction in the bond set (such as asking for a personal recognizance bond), or he could seek release upon expiration of the maximum prescribed sentence by virtue of a writ requiring the prisoner's release. With kind regards, I am

Senior Assistant Attorney General
R/'ED AN.· D APPROVED ~Y:

..

f/h~P-/~~
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General