Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jaquwn Brewer was convicted of multiple charges in connection with the shooting of two individuals at a nightclub. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court concerned the admission of Brewer's unredacted audiotaped interrogation by the police. The Court found the admission of Brewer's interrogation was error. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed Brewer's convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, finding the admission error was harmless with respect to these charges. The murder conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "South Carolina v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Appellant Kenneth Morris, II appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress ecstasy and marijuana discovered during a traffic stop, arguing they were obtained as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the officers had both reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the entire vehicle. View "South Carolina v. Morris" on Justia Law

Appellant Charvus Nesbitt appealed a circuit court judgment finding that he entered a knowing and voluntary "Alford" plea to three of four charges listed in a negotiated plea agreement. On appeal, he argued that his plea agreement was a "package deal," and because his plea for one of the charges was invalid, please for the remaining charges were also invalid. The State conceded that the circuit court erred in failing to properly question and advise appellant of his rights with respect to the the charge appellant alleged was invalid. When the terms and obligations set forth in a plea agreement are not fulfilled, appellate courts may consider whether that failure constitutes harmless error. Here, Appellant received the forty-year sentence which he negotiated, and further received the benefit of having one of the charges against him essentially dropped, as his criminal record will only reflect three convictions and not four. Therefore, to the extent there was error, Appellant has suffered no prejudice. As such, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court. View "South Carolina v. Nesbitt" on Justia Law

In 2007, respondent Alonzo Hawes shot and killed his estranged wife in the presence of their children. Following a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter, the trial court granted Hawes's section 16-25-90 motion for eligibility for early parole, which the court of appeals affirmed. The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. Because the trial court failed to exercise discretion, which the Supreme Court concluded was likely the result of its reliance on a prior version of section 16-25-90, it vacated the court of appeals' opinion and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the correct version of the statute. View "South Carolina v. Hawes" on Justia Law

Respondent Bryant Kinloch was charged with trafficking cocaine, trafficking heroin, and possession with intent to distribute heroin within proximity of a park after law enforcement obtained a search warrant and discovered cocaine and heroin at a Charleston residence. Before trial, Kinloch moved to suppress the drugs, arguing: (1) the search warrant affidavit was not sufficient to establish probable cause to search the residence; (2) the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply; and (3) even if the affidavit were sufficient, law enforcement intentionally omitted exculpatory information, which, if included, would defeat probable cause. The trial judge suppressed the drugs, finding the search warrant affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The State appealed. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's suppression ruling as the magistrate had a substantial basis for reaching his probable cause determination. View "South Carolina v. Kinloch" on Justia Law

Fifteen inmates who were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court for resentencing in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)). The Court held that their sentences violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller and the petitioners and those similarly situated were entitled to resentencing. View "Aiken v. Byars" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jomar Robinson appealed the court of appeals' decision to affirm his convictions for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute (PWID), PWID within one-half mile of a public park, unlawful carrying of a pistol, possession of marijuana, and resisting arrest. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed (as modified). View "South Carolina v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In 1993, Way pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a minor. The victim was Way's 13-year-old niece, who was spending the night with Way (who was then about 28 years old) and his wife. Way was sentenced to ten years in prison, suspended upon the service of eighteen months in prison and five years of probation. In 1995, while on probation, Way pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In that matter, Way allowed two girls who were runaways, one 13 and one 15, to spend the night at his home without notifying the police. While still on probation in 1997, Way pled guilty to committing a lewd act upon a minor. The victim was a 13-year-old girl, who reported that Way met her at a boat dock in 1995 and gave her marijuana, then had sexual intercourse with her. Way was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for this offense. In 2007, prior to his release from prison, Way was referred to the multidisciplinary team, which determined there was probable cause to believe Way met the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator (SVP). The circuit court concluded probable cause existed and ordered a mental evaluation of Way. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Way met the definition of an SVP, and the circuit court ordered him to be civilly committed for long-term control, care and treatment. Way appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In his appeal, Way challenged the propriety of both the State's cross-examination of Way and its invocation of the missing witness rule in closing argument. The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine Way about his retention of his non-testifying expert witness. Furthermore, the Court concluded the circuit court erred in allowing the State to assert that the jury could infer the missing witness' testimony would have been adverse to Way's case. Despite these errors, the Court concluded (as did the Court of Appeals) that these errors could not have reasonably affected the outcome of Way's case. The Court of Appeals was affirmed (as modified). View "In the Matter of Vincent Neal Way" on Justia Law

The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari in this post-conviction relief (PCR) action to review the Court of Appeals' decision, which remanded for a determination of the lawfulness of Antonio Bordeaux's sentence. Bordeaux's plea agreement was capped at a sentence of twenty-five years. He pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery and two counts of burglary. He was sentenced to twenty-four years' imprisonment on the armed robbery charges, and to twenty-five years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of twenty years with three years' probation on the burglary counts. Bordeaux's plea proceeding was conducted simultaneously with that of a co-defendant, Wesley Washington. Washington had been indicted on two counts of first degree burglary, but pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree burglary. The transcript reflected that the plea colloquy with the trial judge alternated between Bordeaux and Washington. During Bordeaux's plea colloquy, he acknowledged on at least seven occasions that he was pleading guilty to two counts of first degree burglary. At sentencing, Bordeaux was again reminded, and acknowledged, that he was being sentenced pursuant to his plea negotiations for two counts of first degree burglary, each of which carried a minimum fifteen-year sentence, and a maximum of life imprisonment. The State argued the Court of Appeals erred because the unambiguous plea colloquy and imposition of sentence control over the ambiguous written sentence. To this point, the Supreme Court agreed: it was clear Bordeaux pleaded guilty to first degree burglary, was sentenced within the legal limits for that crime, and in consonance with his negotiated plea agreement. The Court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Bordeaux v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Respondent Matthew Jamison pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He did not petition for a direct appeal. Respondent's first application for post-conviction relief (PCR) was denied. Respondent filed a second PCR application alleging newly discovered evidence. The PCR judge granted relief, and the court of appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the PCR court erred in granting relief in respondent's second PCR application. Respondent's PCR testimony revealed that his decision to plead guilty rested on several considerations: the strength of the State's evidence against him, the relative weakness of his self-defense claim, and his counseled determination that it was to his advantage to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter in order to avoid going to trial on the indicted offense of murder. "Respondent is bound by his plea and conviction unless he can demonstrate the interest of justice requires that they be vacated. To grant relief under these circumstances would undermine the solemn nature of a guilty plea and the finality that generally attaches to a guilty plea." View "Jamison v. South Carolina" on Justia Law