Could a municipal judge deny good-time credit when a defendant chose jail instead of paying a fine?

Plain-English summary

A municipal judge asked whether a magistrate or municipal court could impose thirty days in jail without “good time” or “work credit” when a defendant did not pay an alternative fine. The AG expressly interpreted the question as a sentence of thirty days or a fine, followed by the defendant's refusal to pay the fine and service of the jail term.

For a sentence served in a local correctional facility, the AG said the then-applicable good-conduct statute entitled an eligible prisoner to a deduction calculated at one day for every two days served. He concluded that choosing not to pay the alternative fine did not erase that good-time entitlement. Although the request mentioned work credit, the letter's analysis and answer addressed good-time credit; it gave no separate work-credit ruling.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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 refusing to pay the alternative fine cancel good-time credit?
The AG said no. The defendant serving the jail term remained entitled to the statutory credit described in the opinion.

What sentence did the AG analyze?
He analyzed a thirty-day jail sentence offered as an alternative to a fine, with the defendant serving the jail term after not paying.

Did the opinion decide work credit as a separate benefit?
No. The question mentioned work credit, but the reasoning and conclusion concerned good-time credit.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied the good-conduct-credit provision for local correctional facilities and relied on an earlier AG opinion about unpaid alternative fines. The statutory credit depended on the prisoner's conduct record as described in the quoted provision.

Citations and references

The letter quoted S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-210 (C) and discussed an earlier May 19, 2004 AG opinion.

Official title

Questioning whether a magistrate or municipal judge may sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment of thirty days with no “good time” or “work credit” if the fine is not paid in lieu of jail time.

Requester

The Honorable B. Lee Miller, Municipal Court Judge

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-23-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05june23miller.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsreR
ATI'ORNEY GENERAL

June 23, 2005

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Municipal Court Judge
P. 0. Box 40
Greenwood, South Carolina 29648
Dear Judge Miller:

ln a letter to this office you questioned whether a magistrate or municipal judgf may sentence a defendant to a tenn ofimprisonment of thirty days with no "good time" or "work credit" if the fine is not paid in lieu of jail time. I am interpreting your question as to circumstances where a judge imposes a sentence of thirty days or a fine in the alternative and the defendant refuses to pay the alternative fine and therefore must serve a term of imprisonment. A prior opinion ofthis office dated April 30, 1985 recognized that the "the matter of allowing good behavior credits is purely statutory." As to the applicability of"good time" credit to a sentence imposed by a magistrate or municipal judge, S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-210 (C) (Supp. 2004) appears to be applicable inasmuch as if pertains to imprisonment at a local correctional facility as opposed to the Department of Corrections. It is my understanding that, typically, defendants who receive sentences of a term of imprisonment in a magistrate's or municipal court serve such period of imprisonment in a local correctional facility. Section 24-13-210 (C) states: (C) A prisoner convicted of an offense against this State and sentenced to a local correctional facility, or upon the public works of any county in this State, 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 bis sentence commences to run. computed at the rate of one day for every two days served. When two or more consecutive sentences are to be served. the aggregate of the several sentences is the basis upon which good conduct credits must be computed. (emphasis added).
\Vhen interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying

~~~REMY~ BVlU>ING • PosrO~rlCE Box 11 549 • COUJMBIA, S.C. 2921 1-1549 • TEl..EPttom:: 803-734-3 970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Page2
June 23, 2005

I
I

the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971). Resort to subtle or
forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be
undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear
and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C.
270, 403 S.E.2d 660 ( 1991 ). Statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which
is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. Jones v. South Carolina State Highway
Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). As set forth by Section 24-13-210(C), for
defendants sentenced to a local correctional facility, "good time" credit is computed at the rate of
one day for every two days served. According to such provision, the defendant is "entitled
to ... (the) ... deduction".
A prior opinion of this office dated May 19, 2004 dealt with the situation where a defendant
is sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a fine and does not pay the fine. That opinion concluded
that:
.. .the offender would still be entitled to good time credits, regardless of whether the
fine is paid or not, and therefore could be released absent some further finding by the
court regarding the nonpayment of a fine ....
Consistent with such, in my opinion, as to circumstances where a judge imposes a sentence of thirty
days or a fine in the alternative and the defendant refuses to pay the alternative fine and therefore
must serve a term of imprisonment, that defendant would still be entitled to receive "good time"
credits as provided by Section 24-13-210(C).
Sincerely,

I

cflJdT{'/21~
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

:0U ~. -

~rg1,~
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General