Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-023 - Kollyns v. State

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Kris Kollyns,        Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina,        Respondent.


Appeal From Jasper County
Jackson V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-023
Submitted November 19, 2003 – Filed January 15, 2004


AFFIRMED


Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor D. Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Allen Bullard, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kris Kollyns appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus.  We affirm. [1]

FACTS

Kollyns, an inmate at McCormick Correctional Institution, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the circuit court seeking the return of 20 good time days allegedly taken from him at a South Carolina Department of Corrections minor disciplinary hearing.  It is unclear from the petition whether Kollyns actually lost good time credits or was barred from earning them for a period of time.  In his petition, Kollyns asserts he appealed the department’s ruling to the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD), but that the ALJD dismissed his appeal pursuant to an en banc order regarding inmate appeals.  In its return, the State moved to dismiss Kollyns’ petition noting, among other things, the only proper inquiry in a habeas corpus action is the legality of the petitioner’s present detention.  After a hearing, the circuit court dismissed the petition on the grounds argued in the State’s return. 

LAW/ANALYSIS

We first note the circuit court properly dismissed Kollyns’ petition because the relief he sought, the return of good time credits, was outside the scope of an action for habeas corpus.  Gibson v. State, 329 S.C. 37, 40, 495 S.E.2d 426, 427 (1998) (noting the purpose of habeas corpus is to determine the legality of the petitioner’s present detention and the only relief that can be granted is release from custody).

On appeal, Kollyns for the first time seeks a remand of his case to the ALJD.  He claims the ALJD has jurisdiction over his appeal from the department of corrections pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (1999).  However, because this issue was never raised to the circuit court it is not proper for our review.  State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 646, 576 S.E.2d 168, 174 (issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 101 (2003). 

For the reasons set forth above, Kollyns’ appeal is

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.  


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