Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jose Lozada appealed the circuit court's order denying his petition for a declaratory judgment to be removed from the Sex Offender Registry. Defendant argued that the crime to which he pled guilty in Pennsylvania—unlawful restraint—was not a "similar offense" to the crime of kidnapping in South Carolina. He accordingly contended that he should not have been required to register as a sex offender for unlawful restraint pursuant to Section 23-3-430(A) of the South Carolina Code (2010). Upon review of the applicable legal authorities, the Supreme Court found that though "kidnapping" allowed for a greater punishment than "unlawful restraint," that fact did not prove that the offenses were not similar because kidnapping included significantly more culpable behavior. Based on the similarity in public policy behind both the Pennsylvania and South Carolina statutes and the fact that all the conduct proscribed under unlawful restraint was proscribed under the kidnapping statute, the Supreme Court found Defendant was properly required to register as a sex offender in South Carolina. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the circuit court's order. View "Lozada v. So Car. Law Enforcement Div." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant William Dickerson of first degree murder, kidnapping, and criminal sexual conduct, for which he was sentenced to death.  On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued the circuit court erred: (1) in not excusing a juror for cause; (2) in limiting the cross-examination of the pathologist called by the State; (3) in not charging the jury on the law of accessory after the fact; and (4) in limiting the testimony of Dickerson's cousin during the penalty phase of his trial.  Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed and further found that Defendant's sentence was proportional, supported by the evidence, and not the result of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. View "South Carolina v. Dickerson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jason Dickey appealed a court of appeals' decision that affirmed his conviction of voluntary manslaughter.  Petitioner worked as a security guard at an apartment building when on the night of April 29, 2004, an intoxicated water balloon toss among residents turned into a heated argument. The prank so angered visitor Joshua Boot that he threatened to physically assault the person who splashed him. Boot began banging on neighbors' doors, which prompted his resident-host to go to the security desk to ask Petitioner to evict her guest.  Petitioner testified he pulled the gun to discourage Boot and another guest from attacking him. Petitioner testified he saw Boot reach under his shirt as he came towards him, and Petitioner feared he was reaching for a weapon. Without warning, Petitioner fired three shots striking Boot. Subsequently, a Richland County grand jury indicted Petitioner for murder. Petitioner's counsel twice moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the ground that Petitioner was acting in self-defense when he shot Boot. The circuit judge denied both motions. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the State failed to disprove the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence established that Petitioner shot and killed Boot in self-defense.  Therefore, the Court reversed the court of appeals and overturned Petitioner's conviction. View "South Carolina v. Dickey" on Justia Law

Appellant Thomas Jennings was convicted of two counts of committing a lewd act upon a minor and was sentenced to fifty-five months' imprisonment for the first charge and fifteen years, suspended upon the service of fifty months and three years' probation for the second charge, with the sentences to run consecutively.  Appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the written reports of a forensic interviewer.  Appellant admitted he developed a friendly relationship with the victims and that he had engaged in incidental physical contact with them from time to time.  He vehemently denied, however, touching any of them inappropriately. The forensic interviewer interviewed each of the children.  The State called her as its first witness and asked her to briefly summarize what each of the victims told her during the interviews.  Appellant objected, and the trial court sustained the objection.  The State then moved to admit the forensic interviewer's written reports into evidence.  Over Appellant's objection, the trial court allowed the written reports into evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found portions of the written reports constituted inadmissible hearsay as they were out-of-court statements offered to prove that appellant did in fact inappropriately touch the children in the way that they claimed. The Court also found the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce this evidence, which was not harmless: "[the] trial hinged on the children's credibility, and the written reports were cumulative to the children's testimony." Accordingly, the Court reversed appellant's convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "South Carolina v. Jennings" on Justia Law

Petitioner Gary DuBose Terry was sentenced to death for murder, life imprisonment for first-degree burglary, thirty years' imprisonment for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and ten years' imprisonment for malicious injury to a telephone system. Petitioner argued in his application for post-conviction relief (PCR) that his trial counsel were ineffective in failing to argue during the hearing on the State's in limine motion that certain statements should have been introduced because of the State's misconduct and trial counsels' detrimental reliance on the State's "apparent intent" to offer those statements into evidence. Furthermore, Petitioner contended trial counsel were ineffective in failing to adjust their defense strategy in the guilt phase of trial in order to maintain credibility with the jury during sentencing. Specifically, petitioner argued trial counsel had a duty, after stating during the opening statement that petitioner "confessed," to adjust their trial strategy and not continue to pursue a reasonable doubt defense. Upon review, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to support the PCR court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s application, and affirmed the lower court’s decision. View "Terry v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Petitioner Roy Tennant challenged the trial court's rulings on several evidentiary issues in his trial for first degree kidnapping, and assault and battery.  In particular, Petitioner argued the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of a forensic psychologist, erred in excluding a note written by Petitioner addressed to the victim, and erred in excluding proffered statements regarding the sexual history between the victim and the defendant. Upon review of the trial court's record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to uphold the trial court, finding that Petitioner's proffered evidence was irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, and therefore, Petitioner was not prejudiced by the trial court's exclusion. View "South Carolina v. Tennant" on Justia Law

Respondent Municipal Court Judge Sheryl Polk McKinney's sister, who was the Clerk of the Town of Varnville, was arrested and charged with embezzlement of public funds, forgery, and misconduct in office.  Respondent's sister was accused of issuing checks in Respondent's name, forging respondent's name to the checks and converting the money for her personal use over an eight year period. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that by her misconduct, Respondent violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Rule 501, SCACR). The Court found Respondent’s misconduct warranted a suspension from judicial duties.  Respondent was suspended for thirty days.  View "In the Matter of Municipal Court Judge Sheryl Polk McKinney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court's order granting post-conviction relief (PCR) to Defendant Kelle Holden as to her guilty plea.  The State contended the circuit court judge erred in finding plea counsel ineffective for failing to adequately (1) discuss the charges with Holden, and (2) explaining to Defendant that she was pleading guilty without a sentence recommendation from the State. In 2005 Defendant was arrested and indicted for numerous charges stemming from her participation, along with several other co-defendants, in a series of car break-ins that occurred in Greenville County over a six-month period.  Following her arrest, Holden cooperated with law enforcement and gave a statement regarding her involvement. In 2006, Defendant pled guilty to multiple drug, larceny and theft charges. The plea judge sentenced Defendant to several concurrent sentences for each of the charges against her. Defendant appealed her guilty plea and sentences to the Court of Appeals.  She voluntarily chose to withdraw her appeal.  After the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, Defendant filed a timely application for PCR in which she alleged that ineffective assistance of plea counsel rendered her guilty plea involuntary. When asked about the plea proceeding, Defendant acknowledged the judge had questioned her regarding her decision to plead guilty and had discussed the maximum sentences for each of the charges.  Defendant also recalled the solicitor's statement that there was no sentence recommendation.  At the conclusion of her cross-examination testimony, Defendant admitted she would not have filed the PCR application had she received less than a three-year sentence. The judge concluded that plea counsel "misadvised [Holden] about the sentence she would receive if she accepted the State's plea offer and entered a guilty plea."  The Supreme Court's review of the plea proceeding revealed that Defendant was clearly aware of the elements of the charged offenses, the State's evidence as to the charges, and the potential sentences. The Court found no probative evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that Holden received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to her guilty plea. The Court reversed the PCR judge's decision and reinstated Defendant's guilty plea. View "Holden v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

After Appellant Donald Brandt produced a fraudulent document in a civil proceeding, a circuit court held Appellant in civil and criminal contempt.  In turn, the court dismissed Appellant's legal malpractice action with prejudice and ordered him to serve six months in jail and pay the defendants' attorneys' fees. In 1998, Appellant sued Elizabeth Gooding and her law firm Gooding & Gooding, P.A. for legal malpractice based on Gooding's representation of him in a real estate transaction.  During the course of discovery, Appellant presented to his attorney a document which appeared to have been sent the lender in the transaction to Appellant on September 18, 1995.  Appellant also provided the letter to his malpractice expert.  The letter was then introduced in the expert's deposition and used by him to opine that Gooding had committed malpractice. The document, if authentic, would have imputed knowledge to Gooding of a conflict of interest related to the representation of Appellant in the real estate transaction.  Gooding, however, claimed the document was fraudulent.  As a result, Gooding requested a hearing to determine whether the document was authentic.  Additionally, Gooding requested the court hold Appellant in contempt and award costs if such authenticity could not be established. Subsequently, based on the fraudulent document, the State indicted Appellant for forgery.  After a jury found Appellant guilty of the indicted offense, the trial judge sentenced Brandt to ten years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of four years, followed by five years' probation and payment of restitution. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant contended that the trial judge erred in failing to dismiss the forgery indictment and in failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict on the ground that Double Jeopardy barred the forgery prosecution.  Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support a forgery conviction.  Because the forged document did not involve a dollar amount and the State did not present evidence of a definitive dollar amount, the Court held that the trial judge erred in sentencing Appellant for felony forgery. The Court remanded the case back to the circuit court for resentencing. View "South Carolina v. Brandt" on Justia Law

Appellant Abel Jacobs appealed a circuit court's decision holding that a sentence for burglary in the first degree cannot be suspended under the language of South Carolina Code section 24-21-410.  In January 2010, Appellant pled guilty to a variety of criminal charges, including a charge for first degree burglary.  At the plea hearing, defense counsel asked the circuit judge to suspend the minimum fifteen year sentence for first degree burglary in lieu of placing Appellant under probation.  Defense counsel opined that state courts have routinely suspended sentences for first degree burglary, and the State has never appealed those sentences.  The circuit judge deferred sentencing Appellant for the first degree burglary conviction at the plea hearing, and requested the parties submit memoranda in support of their positions regarding the suspension issue.  The circuit judge subsequently issued an order finding that a sentence for the conviction of first degree burglary is not suspendable under section 24-21-410 of the South Carolina Code.  At the sentencing hearing, the circuit judge sentenced Appellant to fifteen years imprisonment for first degree burglary, along with  concurrent sentences for remaining charges, crediting Appellant for time served prior to his guilty plea. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that section 24-21-410 of the South Carolina code does not give courts the authority to suspend sentences for crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment, and this includes crimes that include lesser sentences than death or life imprisonment.  Therefore, the Court affirmed the circuit court's order. View "South Carolina v. Jacobs" on Justia Law