“no parole offense” as defined in Section 24-13-100, who is assigned to a productive duty assignment or who is regularly enrolled and actively participating in an academic, technical, or vocational training program, a reduction from the term of his sentence of zero to one day for every two days he is employed or enrolled. A maximum annual credit for both work credit and education credit is limited to one hundred eighty days. S.C.Code Ann. § 24-13-230(A). Like § 24-13-210, I would find that § 24-13-230(A) is clear and unambiguous. In my opinion, the legislature’s use of the word “may” indicates its intention that any reduction in sentence pursuant to § 24-13-230(A) be left to the discretion of DOC. See Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Pageland, 321 S.C. 538, 543, 471 S.E.2d 137, 140 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Stated differently, there is no mandatory
holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words holding that if words of statute are unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction holding that when a statutes terms are clear and unambiguous on their face there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous