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 Court of Appeals
Wayne S. Tippett, Appellant,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appeal From the Administrative Law Court
John D. Geathers, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-631
Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed November 12, 2008
Wayne S. Tippett, pro se, for Appellant.
Robert Wesley Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Wayne S. Tippett was convicted of armed robbery in 1972 and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment with hard labor. Tippett escaped in 1972 and again in 1976, returning to custody in South Carolina in 2002. Tippett appeals the Administrative Law Court’s denial of his grievance contesting a disciplinary conviction of “escape” following his 1976 escape and its dismissal of his grievances contesting the loss of twenty days of good time following the 1972 escape, the denial of sentence credits for the time he served in a Utah county jail while contesting extradition, and the unlawful recalculation of his sentence term. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to the issue of Tippett’s disciplinary conviction of “escape” following his 1976 escape: S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-380(A)(4), 1-23-610(C) (Supp. 2007) (limiting review of a decision by the ALC to the record); Kearse v. State Health & Human Servs. Fin. Comm’n, 318 S.C. 198, 200, 456 S.E.2d 892, 893 (1995) (“The findings of the agency are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence.”).
2. As to the issue of the loss of twenty days of good time following Tippett’s 1972 escape: S.C. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 259, 659 S.E.2d 233, 235 (Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm’n, 321 S.C. 219, 226, 467 S.E.2d 913, 917 (1996)) (“The burden is on appellants to prove convincingly that the agency’s decision is unsupported by the evidence.”).
3. As to the issue of the denial of sentence credits for the time Tippett served in a Utah county jail while contesting extradition: S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-40 (2007); see also Delahoussaye v. State, 369 S.C. 522, 528, 633 S.E.2d 158, 161 (2006) (citing Oglesby v. Leeke, 263 S.C. 283, 210 S.E.2d 232 (1974)) (recognizing a convict may earn sentence credits while in the custody of another jurisdiction, but excluding from eligibility for these credits a convict who finds himself in the other jurisdiction’s custody following his escape from South Carolina custody).
4. As to the issue of the unlawful recalculation of Tippett’s sentence term: Wright v. Marlboro County Sch. Dist., 317 S.C. 160, 164, 452 S.E.2d 12, 15 (Ct. App. 1994) (“Ordinarily, the decision of an administrative tribunal precludes the relitigation of the issues addressed by that tribunal in a collateral action.”).
ANDERSON, HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur,
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.