This case was a class action seeking a declaratory relief with regard to the interpretation of a South Carolina state law pertaining to inmate eligibility for participation in the Supervised Furlough Release Program (Program). The action was initially filed in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, South Carolina on behalf of the plaintiff class in federal lawsuit Plyler v. Evatt, No. 82-876-2 (PC-SC-0004). The Court (Judge Luke N. Brown) ruled that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-710 and § 24-13-720 (1989) created two separate classification schemes to determine inmate eligibility for participation in the Program. Plyler v. Evatt, 409 S.E.2d 416 (S.C. 1991). The Department of Corrections appealed.

On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision as modified. The Supreme Court held that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-710 and § 24-13-720 (1989) did create two separate classification schemes. However, § 24-13-710 also allowed the DOC to create additional eligibility criteria, including requiring that the inmate be within six months of expiration of his sentence to participate in the Program. Plyler v. Evatt, 438 S.E.2d 244 (S.C. 1993).

Subsequent to that opinion, the law creating the Program was amended in 1993. Following the 1993 amendment, another declaratory judgment action was filed in the Circuit Court of Richland County, South Carolina. The Circuit Judge (Carol Connor) ruled that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-720 (1989) as amended, which created the Program, entitled all prisoners within six months of expiration of their sentences, except those serving life terms, to participate in the Program. The Department of Corrections appealed.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-720 (1989) was amended in 1993 such that it created a new law, as opposed to a clarification of the old law. As such, inmates that met the statutory requirements for participation in the program prior to the 1993 change were entitled to participation in the Program. Plyler v. Evatt, 438 S.E.2d 244 (S.C. 1993).

We have no further information on this case.

Dan Dalton - 02/28/2007


compress summary