Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-MO-042 - Major v. State
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court


Brian W. Major, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Appeal from Greenville County
C. Victor Pyle, Circuit Court Judge
 Edward W. Miller, Post Conviction Relief Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-042
Submitted September 20, 2006 – Filed December 11, 2006


AFFIRMED


W. Gaston Fairey, of W. Gaston Fairey LLC, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christopher L. Newton, all of Columbia, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM: Brian Major (Major) filed an application for post conviction relief (PCR) after he received notification of his parole ineligibility from the South Carolina Pardon, Parole and Probation Services (SCPPPS).   The PCR court dismissed Major’s application without prejudice finding that the claim was not cognizable in a PCR application.  This Court granted Major’s petition to review the PCR court’s decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authority:  Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000) (holding that issues related to sentence calculation and other conditions of imprisonment are administrative matters and, thus, cannot be raised in a PCR application).  Accordingly, Major must pursue his requested relief through the procedures provided in the Administrative Procedures Act in order to have his sentence reordered in accordance with our decision in Tilley v. State, 334 S.C. 24, 511 S.E.2d 689 (1999) (holding that the consecutive nature of the sentence does not mandate that the sentence be served in a specific order absent the sentencing court’s clear articulation that the sentence be served in a specific order).

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.