Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Larry Moore challenged the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's trial counsel waived his right to a jury trial and opted instead for a bench trial as part of the defense strategy. Petitioner asserted that he did not wish to waive this right, and as a result, received ineffective assistance of counsel. The State asserted that Petitioner failed to establish counsel was ineffective in part because he did not recall "telling counsel that he wished to have a jury trial or asking counsel any questions about when a jury would be selected." "However, this argument exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of what [the Supreme] Court's waiver jurisprudence commands." The validity of a waiver does not turn on his communication with counsel, but rather on the presence of a record supporting the validity of that waiver. The Court concluded that both the trial and PCR courts in this case conducted a deficient analysis of Petitioner's waiver. The waiver in this case case was not supported by a complete record, and PCR court erred in finding that Petitioner made a knowing and voluntary waiver. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower courts and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Moore v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Appellant Stacy Howard, an inmate incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"), appealed the Administrative Law Court's ("ALC's") summary dismissal of his appeal from a prison disciplinary conviction. Appellant contended the SCDC's actions implicated a state-created liberty interest and, thus, the ALC erred in summarily dismissing his appeal pursuant to section 1-23-600(D) of the South Carolina Code. Additionally, Appellant challenged: (1) the enforcement of the policy that formed the basis for the disciplinary conviction; (2) the procedure employed to procure the conviction; and (3) the factual basis underlying the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed: because the plain language of section 1-23-600(D) would prohibit an ALC from hearing all inmate appeals involving the loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-related credits, the Court clarified that the ALC may not summarily dismiss an appeal solely on the basis that it involves the loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-related credits. Instead, the ALC must also consider whether the appeal implicates a state-created liberty or property interest. Furthermore, the Court found that the loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-related credits did not implicate a state-created liberty interest. The Court affirmed the ALC's dismissal of Appellant's appeal finding that Appellant failed to establish a legal basis on which to challenge the enforcement of the disciplinary policy underlying his conviction. View "Howard v. So. Carolina Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Appellant Anthony Gracely appealed his conviction for conspiracy to traffic four hundred grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of section 44-53-375 of the South Carolina Code. Appellant argued that the circuit court improperly limited his cross-examination of the State's witnesses, thereby violating his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Appellant also argued that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: "[i]n a case built on circumstantial evidence, including testimony from witnesses with such suspect credibility, a ruling preventing a full picture of the possible bias of those witnesses cannot be harmless. Based on the Record before [the] Court, it is impossible to conclude that the trial court's error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." View "South Carolina v. Gracely" on Justia Law

Appellant Samuel Whitner was convicted and sentenced for the offense of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree. The victim of the sexual abuse was Appellant's then five- or six-year-old daughter. Appellant challenged two evidentiary rulings: (1) the denial of his motion to suppress a tape recording of his telephone conversation with the victim wherein he admitted the abuse; and (2) the denial of his motion to exclude evidence in connection with a forensic interview of the minor victim. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the admission of the challenged evidence and affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Whitner" on Justia Law

Appellant Kathy Salley was found guilty of homicide by child abuse and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, suspendable upon eight years' service. Appellant claims the circuit judge committed reversible error by allowing into evidence a photograph of the child taken while she was alive and well, and two pieces of wood found at the home of the child. Although the Supreme Court believed that the admission of the pieces of wood was an abuse of discretion, the Court nevertheless found the error to be harmless. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "South Carolina v. Salley" on Justia Law

Petitioner Bobbie Manigo challenged his civil commitment to the Department of Mental Health for long-term control, care, and treatment pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"). Specifically, Petitioner contended that, although he has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, he was exempt from the SVPA evaluation procedure simply because his most recent offense was not explicitly designated as sexually violent. The court of appeals affirmed Petitioner's commitment, finding the language of the SVPA unambiguous and applicable to Petitioner. Upon further review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court. View "In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Bobbie Manigo" on Justia Law

Petitioner Chris Anthony Liverman was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner sought certiorari with respect to the claim that the trial court refused to conduct a "full" in camera hearing pursuant to "Neil v. Biggers," (409 U.S. 188 (1972)). Petitioner contended the eyewitness's identification of him as the shooter at a police-orchestrated show-up was unduly suggestive and therefore tainted the in-court identification. The trial court, relying on "McLeod v. State," (196 S.E.2d 645 (1973)), did conduct an in camera hearing and found the pretrial identification was reliable, based primarily on the witness's previous knowledge of Petitioner. Following the court of appeals' decision, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Perry v. New Hampshire," (565 U.S. ___ (2012)). The issue in this case for the Supreme Court concerned "the intersection of a suggestive police show-up identification procedure and an eyewitness who knows the accused." The Court concluded that "McLeod" could not stand in light of "Perry" and overruled "McLeod" insofar as it created a bright-line rule excusing a "Neil v. Biggers" hearing where the eyewitness knows the accused. The Court nevertheless affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentence because any error in failing to conduct a "Neil v. Biggers" hearing was harmless. View "South Carolina v. Liverman" on Justia Law

Respondent Jarod Wayne Tapp was convicted of murdering and sexually assaulting his upstairs neighbor, Julie Jett (victim), and of burglarizing her apartment. Respondent received a life sentence for murder and two thirty-year sentences for the first degree criminal sexual conduct and burglary charges. The Supreme Court granted the State's request for certiorari to review the appellate court's decision to overturn and remand Respondent's convictions and sentences for a new trial. The court of appeals found that the record in this case was insufficient for determining whether the circuit judge properly considered the reliability of a special agent's testimony prior to introducing that testimony to the jury. The Supreme Court agreed that its decision in "State v. White,"(676 S.E.2d684 (2009) governed Respondent's case, but took the opportunity to clarify "White" in light of the court of appeals' misreading of "White" in the opinion below. The Supreme Court's reading of the record convinced the Court that the circuit judge stopped short of determining the reliability of the agent's testimony prior to admitting it into evidence, and therefore the trial court erred. However, the Court found that the error in admitting the testimony at issue was harmless. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated Respondent's convictions. View "South Carolina v. Tapp" on Justia Law

Appellant Joey Ellis appealed a circuit court order that revoked and terminated his probation. He argued that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the probation violation warrant was not issued during the term of his probation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellant's sentence of probation for his attempted burglary in the second degree conviction began after his parole concluded for his conviction for burglary in the second degree, and not following his release from incarceration. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's probation. View "South Carolina v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Petitioner Michael Goins pled guilty to a second possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within the proximity of a school. He received a negotiated ten-year sentence for both convictions, to run concurrently.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the circuit court's denial of post-conviction relief (PCR).  Petitioner argued the PCR court erred in failing to find plea counsel ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty when the drugs obtained were found pursuant to an illegal search.  Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction. Although counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to properly advise Petitioner on the law regarding whether a motel owner can freely admit police into a rented room, Petitioner failed to prove this advice was his reason for electing not to go to trial and has thus failed to establish prejudice. View "Goins v. South Carolina" on Justia Law