A simple typo or misinterpretation of a judge’s handwriting could cost the state of South Carolina thousands of dollars when an inmate is held longer than sentenced.
In 2019, the South Carolina Department of Corrections reported that errors in calculation of sentences cost the state $492,117 by holding inmates 7,549 days over their release date. In the most extreme case, one inmate was held more than two and a half years beyond his release date because of a coding error, with the total cost of prolonged incarceration reaching $61,909.
The culprit is typically CDR codes, four-digit numerical codes which correspond to specific criminal offenses. The acronym originally stood for “Criminal Docket Report” in the days of paper docket sheets, but in the digital era, it’s been redefined as “Criminal Data Report,” or just called an “offense code.” Either way, the problem is that sometimes these numerical codes have been entered incorrectly, which can have significant repercussions.
“I think this is a fairly prevalent issue,” said Austin McDaniel of Anderson, a criminal defense attorney and former 8th Circuit prosecutor. “It impacts everybody when one of these is messed up, which, unfortunately occurs.”
McDaniel recently went through a similar situation, in which he had to track down all of a client’s sentencing documents and find where the CDR code had been written down incorrectly 20 years ago Older cases like that one pose a problem because original sentencing sheets don’t reflect the current classification or categorization of charges, and CDR codes may have been applied incorrectly.
“A statute may read completely different than what you’re pleading guilty to,” McDaniel said. “So you’ll go in and hit a CDR code and the statute will read different but you know the code’s right, but then it gets interpreted differently as it goes through SCDC and calculation.”
Lawmakers are looking at ways to potentially prevent such errors. In January, 16th Circuit Solicitor Kevin Brackett told the House Legislative Oversight Committee that the case management system his office has been using for six years can generate all the documents needed for sentencing electronically, whereas systems in many other jurisdictions require different agencies to manually enter information into their own databases.
Brackett said several other solicitors use his case management system, Prosecutor by Karpel Solutions, or similar programs in their circuits. He said that a uniform statewide program wasn’t necessary, but recommended that systems should be able to interface with systems at SCDC; the state’s Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; and the South Carolina Judicial Department. A sentencing form filled out electronically by the judge could then easily be distributed to all the involved offices.
“I think that would eliminate any errors from transposing the data from a piece of paper into the Department of Corrections’ computer, for example. Exactly what the judge did on the bench would carry straight into Columbia’s computer,” Brackett said.
As an added bonus, Brackett said, the data could then be easily searched for statewide statistical analysis.
“When you’re trying to fight crime, you want to know what is happening on the street,” he said. “If we did that statewide, then agencies like SLED and the legislature would be able to spot trends in crime and craft solutions that were focused on dealing with those problems.”
House committee member Gary Clary (R-Pickens), a retired circuit judge, said if similar document-sharing programs are used in business, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be used in the justice system in 2020.
“When you go to SCDC, it’s a giant jigsaw puzzle, what they have now,” Clary said.
Brackett said he’s been talking with state court administration to develop a program that would allow all state agencies to share criminal justice data. Solicitors are asking legislators for funding to upgrade their case management systems, requesting $2.7 million in non-recurring funds for purchasing and implementation and $1.6 million in recurring funding (about $100,000 for each of the 16 circuits) in the 2020-2021 budget.
“There’s always going to be errors,” SCDC Director Bryan Stirling said. “But one of our core functions is to get the sentence right as a state and as a department. So if we could minimize the handwriting and minimize the potential for misreading a document, or mistakes, I think that would be great.”
For now, criminal defense attorneys will have to continue to thoroughly evaluate the documentation with their clients, and get confirmation from prosecutors, like McDaniel does. He said his firm meticulously goes through sentencing sheets to make sure they are correct because time saved in prevention saves time wasted trying to fix the error.
“You’re talking about hours and hours and hours of court time and communications between probation, SCDC, myself, and the judge’s law clerk to fix the problem,” McDaniel said. “So, heck, if we can fix that, let’s do it.”