EWC level was reduced to a 3 for 5 EWC level, which decreased his monthly work credits by 3.6214279 days credit per month in addition to the withholding of good-time for the month of the infraction.” According to Appellant, the sanction "extended [his] max-out date from March 28, 2017 to November 2, 2017, which is a 217 day[] difference.” 7 .Act No. 334, 2008 S.C. Acts 3308. This amendment became effective on June 16, 2008, eight days prior to Appellant's disciplinary violation. 8 . We note the ALC incorrectly cited S.C.Code Ann. § l-23-560(D) (2008). We believe, however, this citation was a scrivener’s error as the ALC properly cited the amendment to section l-23-600(D) and quoted the applicable portion of this statute. 9 . See Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . If we were to allow Furtick to remain
holding that the proper procedures for challenging the results of a prison disciplinary hearing are appeal administrative review collateral attack or habeas corpus holding that aside from two noncollateral matters specifically listed in the pcr act pcr is a proper avenue of relief only when the applicant mounts a collateral attack challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence as authorized by section 172720a holding that where defendants seek to challenge predicate convictions used to enhance current sentence proper avenue for relief is through pcr proceeding holding that defendants have a federal constitutional right to make a collateral attack on a prior conviction only when that conviction was obtained without the assistance of counsel holding that where the record shows defendant was represented by counsel and the conviction is valid on its face the defendant is precluded from attempting to undermine the validity of that conviction by collateral attack