We acknowledge the plea court's improper reliance on State v. Higgins in declining to credit Posso for time served on monitored house arrest. See 357 S.C. 382, 386, 593 S.E.2d 180, 182 (Ct. App. 2004) (affirming the trial court's refusal to credit Higgins for time spent on house arrest based on a previous version of section 24-13-10, which allowed credit only "for time served in a penal institution"). This court's holding in Higgins was superseded in 2013 by the current version of the statute.

We find, under the limited and unique facts of this case, Brown is entitled to credit for time served even though there were no charges pending against him. Although the charges were technically dropped, the result was functionally the same as if the charges were still pending against Brown. He was confined before trial as a result of his criminal charges and he pled guilty to those charges when he was later re-indicted. See State v. Higgins , 357 S.C. 382, 384, 593 S.E.2d 180, 182 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Generally, penal statutes are to be construed ‘strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant.’ " (quoting Williams v. State , 306 S.C. 89, 91, 410 S.E.2d 563, 564 (1991) ) ). During this period of time, Brown was held in a secure facility with other criminal patients and never released from custody.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to Garcia's request for sentencing credit under section 24-13-40 of the South Carolina Code (2007): State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 237-38, 708 S.E.2d 234, 235 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the authority to change a sentence rests exclusively within the sentencing judge's discretion and an abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions are either controlled by an error of law or lack evidentiary support); State v. Higgins, 357 S.C. 382, 385, 593 S.E.2d 180, 182 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding that our legislature intended to allow credit for time served only in a penal institution and not on home detention). 2.

1. As to Garcia's request for sentencing credit under section 24-13-40 of the South Carolina Code (2007): State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 237-38, 708 S.E.2d 234, 235 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the authority to change a sentence rests exclusively within the sentencing judge's discretion and an abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions are either controlled by an error of law or lack evidentiary support); State v. Higgins, 357 S.C. 382, 385, 593 S.E.2d 180, 182 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding that our legislature intended to allow credit for time served only in a penal institution and not on home detention).2. As to the 2013 amendment to section 24-13-40: Edwards v. State Law Enforcement Div., 395 S.C. 571, 579, 720 S.E.2d 462, 466 (2011) ("[A]bsent a specific provision or clear legislative intent to the contrary, statutes are to be construed prospectively rather than retroactively, unless the statute is remedial or procedural in nature."