Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Russell Earley was convicted of criminal solicitation of a minor and sentenced to eight years in prison. Respondent's criminal charge arose from an encounter with a fourteen-year-old male (Victim) outside a public restroom at Walmart in Sumter in November 2008. On the evening of the incident, the Victim visited Walmart with his grandmother, who had promised to buy him some headphones. The Victim and his grandmother went in separate directions when they entered the store—the Victim headed for the electronics department while his grandmother went to pick up a few grocery items. After separating from his grandmother, the Victim stopped to use the restroom before shopping for headphones; as he entered the restroom, he noticed Respondent following him. The Victim stated he felt uncomfortable because Respondent stood in the restroom watching the Victim use the urinal. The Victim testified Respondent thereafter followed him out of the restroom, pointed to the Victim's genitals, and offered the Victim oral sex, which the Victim declined in no uncertain terms. The Victim immediately reported the incident to Walmart security, and multiple witnesses testified the Victim was visibly upset after the incident. There were no witnesses to the incident itself, and nothing was captured on Walmart surveillance video. The theory of Respondent's defense was that the Victim fabricated the whole story and the motivation for doing so was that Respondent had caught the Victim trying to shoplift CDs. The issue in this PCR matter involved a line of questioning during the State's cross-examination of Respondent. Specifically, the State had evidence that Respondent posted the message "See ya" on the Victim's Facebook wall the week before trial, despite having been ordered after his arrest not to have any contact with the Victim. The State's theory was that by posting such a message, Respondent was attempting to intimidate or threaten the Victim on the eve of trial. Defense counsel did not object or otherwise alert the trial court that the State had failed to disclose the "See ya" Facebook posting prior to trial. After withdrawing his direct appeal, Respondent filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application, generally alleging that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After review of the trial court record, the PCR court granted Respondent relief. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Respondent's conviction and sentence. "Because the trial court would not have been compelled to declare a mistrial, we find the PCR court committed an error of law in finding the outcome of Respondent's trial would have been different had trial counsel moved for a mistrial based on the State's failure to disclose the Facebook posting. Absent a showing of prejudice as required by Strickland, it was error to grant relief." View "Earley v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Petitioner Alexander Hunsberger was sentenced to thirty-three years' incarceration for his part in the murder of Samuel Sturrup. Hunsberger argued on appeal that the trial judge erred in denying his speedy trial motion. Sturrup allegedly stole money from Steven Barnes, the purported head of a robbery and prostitution ring in Georgia. In an effort to force Sturrup to divulge where the stolen money was located, Barnes allegedly beat, and caused others to beat, Sturrup at a location in Augusta, Georgia. Sturrup was then placed in the trunk of a vehicle and brought from Georgia to South Carolina by petitioner and his brother Julio. Hunsberger was arrested in South Carolina and in March 2002, he was indicted for the murder of Sturrup. In June 2002, Hunsberger's request for bail was denied and his renewed request was denied in April 2004. In November 2004, Hunsberger moved for an order requiring the State to try him during the next two terms of court, or if no trial were held, that he be released on bail, citing S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 17-23-90 (2014) and the state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process and speedy trial. While this motion was denied in December 2004, the circuit court judge found the delay "clearly bordering on the excessive" and admonished the State to either try Hunsberger or release him to Georgia which had placed a hold on him. Following notification that the State would not go forward with trial, in January 2005 the circuit court judge granted bail but ordered Hunsberger held unless Georgia released its hold. Petitioner was subsequently extradited to Georgia, and in September 2006, he was convicted there of kidnapping with bodily injury of Sturrup, and sentenced to life imprisonment. In early 2011, Alex was extradited to South Carolina. In January 2012, the State called Hunsberger's case for trial and he moved for dismissal of his charges, claiming his state and federal rights to a speedy trial had been violated. The motion was denied, as was his renewed request made at mid-trial. Hunsberger argued that his right to a speedy trial under both the United States and South Carolina Constitutions was violated, and therefore, his murder charge should be dismissed. The South Carolina Supreme Court analyzed the issue under the Sixth Amendment, and agreed. The Court of Appeals' decision was reversed. View "South Carolina v. Hunsberger" on Justia Law

Respondent Theodore Manning was charged with murder following the death of his girlfriend, Mikki McPhatter. The victim died after being shot in the back of the head in Respondent's home. It was undisputed that the victim was unarmed. Another of Respondent's girlfriends, Kendra Goodman, led police to the victim's abandoned and burned vehicle, where her charred skeletal remains were discovered in the trunk. Respondent claimed self-defense. At a pre-trial hearing, Respondent's counsel relied upon Respondent's statement to police, introduced as an exhibit by the State, to support his immunity claim. In the statement, Respondent maintained he had taken a gun away from the victim during an argument, but ultimately "pulled the trigger to show her to stop playing." After considering Respondent's statement to police and hearing arguments from counsel for both sides, the trial court denied Respondent's pretrial motion for immunity. The matter then proceeded to a jury trial, where respondent was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to thirty years in prison. Respondent appealed, and the court of appeals found, inter alia, that the trial court was required to grant Respondent a full evidentiary hearing prior to determining whether the immunity provision applied, and therefore the court of appeals remanded the case for a full hearing. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to decide whether the appellate court's judgment was made in error. After review, the Supreme Court concluded respondent received the pre-trial determination he was entitled to under South Carolina law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making that ruling without first conducting a full testimonial evidentiary hearing. As such, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals. View "South Carolina v. Manning" on Justia Law

Jimmy Johnson fled from police after being stopped for having an expired vehicle license. Armed, Johnson went to a Carolina Convenience Store in Spartanburg, where he took Saroj Patel hostage. The City's police department negotiated with Johnson in an effort to encourage Johnson to surrender. After the negotiations were unsuccessful, the police department cut off the power to the store and sent tear gas and pepper spray into the building's ventilation system in another attempt to induce surrender. After a twelve-hour standoff, the police decided to breach the building with a bulldozer, which resulted in severe physical damage to the property. Given the condition of the store, the City asked Carolina Convenience to tear it down for code violations. After Carolina Convenience refused, the City demolished the building. Carolina Convenience then brought claims for inverse condemnation and negligence against the City for damages to the store. The circuit court granted the City's summary judgment motion as to the inverse condemnation claim, but denied it as to the negligence claim. The jury returned a verdict in the City's favor as to the negligence claim. The store appealed only the inverse condemnation ruling, but the court of appeals affirmed, finding the circuit court properly granted summary judgment as to the inverse condemnation claim. Finding that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis of the takings claim, the South Carolina Supreme Court simply held that damage to the property during the police department’s hostage rescue effort did not constitute a taking as contemplated by the State Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision as modified. View "Carolina Convenience Stores v. City of Spartanburg" on Justia Law

Following a mistrial, Bryan Rearick moved to bar subsequent prosecution of felony driving under the influence resulting in death ("felony DUI") on the ground a second trial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the State and Federal Constitutions. Rearick appeaed the the denial of this motion, arguing: (1) the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was immediately appealable; and, if so, (2) the judge's declaration of a mistrial was erroneous in that there was no "manifest necessity" to justify the ruling. The Supreme Court adhered to well-established appealability precedent and dismissed the appeal as interlocutory. View "South Carolina v. Rearick" on Justia Law

After a trial, petitioner Nelson Castro was convicted of trafficking cocaine between twenty-eight and one hundred grams and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. Petitioner filed a timely motion for resentencing, which was denied after a hearing. Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner filed an application for PCR alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the trial judge improperly considered petitioner's decision to exercise his right to a jury trial as a factor in sentencing petitioner. The PCR judge denied relief, finding petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving the allegation. After review, the Supreme Court held that the statements made by the trial judge clearly revealed he improperly considered petitioner's decision to exercise his right to a jury trial in sentencing petitioner: "a trial judge abuses his or her discretion when he or she considers the fact that the defendant exercised his or her constitutional right to a jury trial as a factor in sentencing the defendant. Thus, although evidence from the record of other, valid reasons for a sentence might aid an appellate court in determining whether the trial court improperly considered a defendant's decision to proceed to trial during sentencing, those other sentencing factors do not negate the abuse of discretion that occurs when one of the sentencing factors considered by the trial judge was the defendant's decision to proceed to trial." Because trial counsel was deficient in failing to object to the trial judge's improper consideration of petitioner's decision to exercise his right to jury trial in sentencing petitioner, and, had the objection been preserved for appeal, an appellate court would have held the trial judge abused his discretion. The Supreme Court therefore concluded the PCR judge erred in denying petitioner's application for PCR, reversed the denial of relief and remanded for resentencing. View "Castro v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Petitioner Didier Van Sellner pled guilty to armed robbery and later applied for post-conviction relief (PCR), asserting his counsel was ineffective for advising him to take a plea deal when the State could not demonstrate all of the elements of armed robbery. The PCR court denied him relief, finding he received effective assistance of counsel. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the PCR court erred in its finding. The Supreme Court reversed the PCR court's denial of relief, and granted Van Sellner a new trial. View "Van Sellner v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Petitioner Kenneth Simmons was convicted and sentenced for the "brutal and horrific" 1996 murder and criminal sexual assault of an 89-year-old Summerville woman. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief (PCR), which was granted in part. Because Petitioner was intellectually disabled, the PCR court vacated Petitioner's death sentence and imposed a sentence of life without parole. Petitioner additionally sought a new trial on newly discovered evidence and due process grounds, which the PCR court denied without discussion. The essence of Petitioner's new-trial claims centered on the allegation that the State misrepresented at trial the strength of the DNA evidence linking Petitioner to the crimes. The State urged the South Carolina Supreme Court to not reach the merits of Petitioner's certiorari petition on issue-preservation grounds. Alternatively, the State recommended the case be remanded to the PCR court for the issuance of a proper order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Supreme Court concluded the compelling nature of the dispute and the interests of justice warranted the "extraordinary action" of remanding the case to the PCR court for issuance of a proper order. View "Simmons v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Whitlee Jones was indicted for the murder of her boyfriend after she fatally stabbed him at the home they shared. In a pretrial motion, Jones asserted immunity from prosecution under the "Protection of Persons and Property Act." The circuit court judge granted the motion, finding Jones established by a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to immunity. The State appealed, arguing the circuit court erred in finding section 16-11-440(C) of the Act was inapplicable because the stabbing happened in Jones' house rather in "another place where [s]he ha[d] the right to be," or alternatively, Jones failed to establish she was acting in self-defense when she stabbed her boyfriend. Finding no error in the circuit court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jacques Gibson was convicted of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a person under age 21. He sought the Supreme Court's review of his case when a trial court denied his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). These charges stemmed from a fight between two groups at a bar. Shortly after petitioner arrived to pick up his brother Adams, a dispute that began inside the bar spilled out into the parking lot and became a physical altercation between numerous members of each group. During the melee, several gunshots were heard, and the victim was killed by a single nine-millimeter shot to the back of his shoulder. There was evidence, including a statement petitioner gave to police, that petitioner retrieved his gun from his car, pointed his gun at another person he suspected was going to hit Adams, and subsequently fired his gun into the air three to four times as he drove away from the scene. When asked whether he believed he may have shot the victim, petitioner responded, "I think that I did, because I was doing some shooting, but I didn't just look at him and shoot him. . . . the gun could have dropped down because I was driving. I promise I don't remember seeing him and aiming." Trial counsel objected to the charge as a comment on the facts, but did not object to the trial judge's failure to use the permissive inference language approved in "Georgia v. Elmore." Petitioner contended in his PCR application that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the charge. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the PCR judge erred in finding there was evidence of malice other than the use of a deadly weapon. View "Gibson v. South Carolina" on Justia Law