Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The State appealed the trial court's grant of Respondent Robert Nance's pre-trial motion to suppress the testimony of the victim in Respondent's new trial after the Supreme Court granted post-conviction relief (PCR) in "Nance v. Ozmint" (Nance II). Robert Fraley survived Respondent's attack in 1993 and testified at the first trial but died before Respondent was retried. Respondent argued that, because in "Nance II" the Supreme Court found he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel's failure to subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing, he lacked the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Fraley as required by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, Respondent argued, the State could not read Mr. Fraley's testimony into the record as an unavailable witness under Rule 804 of the rules of evidence, because it would violate his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Mr. Fraley was sworn during the first trial, and Respondent had the opportunity to cross-examine him as required by the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court found that the circuit court erred in suppressing Mr. Fraley's testimony. The Court reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "South Carolina v. Nance" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' analysis and disposition of Petitioner Jamey Reid's conviction and sentence for attempted second-degree criminal sexual contact (CSC) with a minor. The single issue before the Court was whether the court of appeals erred in upholding the trial court's denial of Petitioner's directed verdict motion. Petitioner entered an Internet chat room believing he was chatting with a fourteen-year-old female. The supposed minor was, in fact, a Westminster Police Officer. Petitioner quickly turned the conversation to one of a sexual nature, as he desired a sexual encounter with the girl. Petitioner would later be indicted and tried. At the close of the State's case, Petitioner moved for a directed verdict in connection with the attempted CSC charge, arguing that the State had failed to present evidence of an overt act as required by the attempted CSC charge. Because the trial court held there was sufficient evidence presented to create a jury question, the directed verdict motion was denied. The jury convicted Petitioner on both charges, and he was sentenced. Petitioner contended the evidence, as a matter of law, was insufficient on the question of specific intent and further rose only to the level of "mere preparation," entitling him to a directed verdict of acquittal on the attempted CSC charge. Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that because a jury question was presented, the directed verdict motion was properly denied. View "South Carolina v. Reid" on Justia Law

The Town of Mount Pleasant (Town) appealed the circuit court's order reversing and dismissing Defendant Treva Roberts's municipal court conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) on the ground the arresting officer's vehicle was not equipped with a video camera pursuant to the pertinent section of the South Carolina Code. The Town argued on appeal that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Defendant failed to obtain a bond or pay her court-ordered fine prior to initiating her appeal. Furthermore, the Town contended that the court erred in "narrowly construing" the pertinent code to require the reversal of Defendant's DUI conviction and dismissal of the charge. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the circuit court judge erred in classifying the Town's jurisdictional challenge as one involving subject matter jurisdiction. Because Defendant timely served her notice of appeal on the municipal court, she met the procedural requirements. As such, her failure to obtain a bond or pay the court-ordered fine did not divest the circuit court of appellate jurisdiction. As to the merits, the Court found that the Town's prolonged failure to equip its patrol vehicles with video cameras defeated the intent of the state law mandating their use. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Town should not be able to avoid its statutorily created obligation to produce a videotape by repeatedly relying on the code. Because the Town failed to establish any statutory exception to excuse its noncompliance, the Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Defendant's DUI charge and conviction and dismissed the charge. View "Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The State alleged Defendant Sammyeil Barber and three others (Blake Kimbrell, Kenneth Walker, and Marcus Kiser) conspired to rob a drug dealer, Alan Heintz. The men gathered together and discussed the plans for the robbery, procured a semi-automatic handgun and then drove to Heintz's house. Upon discovering more people than expected at the house, they left to procure a second firearm. The men returned to Heintz's house and Kimbrell waited in the car while Barber, Walker, and Kiser went inside. Heintz was dragged from his bedroom and ultimately drew a shotgun on the robbers. One of the suspects armed with a semi-automatic handgun shot and killed Heintz and shot and wounded another man who was sleeping on the couch. The three men fled the premises, stealing only $30 and leaving the second firearm behind. Kimbrell, Walker, and Kiser all implicated Barber in the planning and execution of the robbery and said he was the gunman who shot Heintz. They pled guilty and testified against Barber, each receiving 15–30 years. At Barber's trial, Kimbrell, Walker, and Kiser all testified Barber was armed with the semi-automatic handgun and had shot both victims. On appeal, Barber argued the accomplice liability charge against him was improper because it was unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the charge was properly supported by the evidence presented at trial. The Court affirmed Barber's conviction and sentence. View "Barber v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Defendant James Miller appealed the circuit court's order committing him to the custody of the Department of Mental Health under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), asserting that the State failed to try the case within sixty days of the probable cause hearing as mandated by the SVPA. In September 2001, Miller pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a child under the age of sixteen years and criminal domestic violence. In May 2005, prior to his scheduled release date of December 1, 2005, the Department of Corrections referred Miller's case to the multidisciplinary team to assess whether Miller constituted a "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) as defined by the SVPA. Having determined that Miller satisfied the statutory definition of an SVP, the multidisciplinary team referred the case to the prosecutor's review committee. While the State assembled its case for committing Miller, it asked for several continuances. In January 2006, Miller filed a motion to dismiss the commitment hearing, arguing that the State's petition "should be dismissed with prejudice due to the State's failure to pursue the prosecution of this matter in a reasonably timely manner." Specifically, counsel claimed that the "case should have been tried on or before January 4, 2006 because [Miller's] continued incarceration beyond December 1, 2005 [was] certainly prejudicial." In opposition, the State claimed it had "good cause" for a continuance as the forensic psychiatrist, who conducted all of the state's SVP evaluations, was unable to complete the evaluation within the sixty-day time period. The circuit court conducted a hearing the same day the motion to dismiss was filed; however, the court did not rule on the motion but instead took it under advisement. The court issued an order denying Miller's motion to dismiss in July. Although the court expressed its displeasure with the State's routine delay in initiating the SVP process, it found the State's interest in proceeding with the SVP trial outweighed the prejudice to Miller. Additionally, the court found there was no substantial prejudice to Miller. The Court of Appeals affirmed Miller's civil commitment. Although the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, the Court used this case as an opportunity to clarify certain procedural aspects of the SVPA. Specifically, Court considered the appropriate remedy when the State fails to timely conduct a civil commitment trial within the time provisions mandated by the SVPA. The Court held that if an inmate is granted a dismissal the proceedings should be dismissed without prejudice to the State. If the motion to dismiss is granted, the inmate may be released from custody while the State re-files its petition to the circuit court provided that the inmate has completed his sentence as determined by the Department of Corrections. View "In the Matter of James Miller" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant-Attorney James Brown was appointed to represent Alfonzo Howard. Mr. Howard was charged with multiple crimes, including first degree criminal sexual conduct, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime. From the beginning, Appellant complained about the appointment, first to the circuit's chief administrative judge, and then to the trial judge. The charges against Howard proceeded to trial.  During the trial, Appellant's belligerent unwillingness to comply with the court's order continued. The trial court, "displaying remarkable patience," only threatened Appellant with contempt and instructed Appellant to proceed.  Appellant then invoked his right to counsel.  The trial against Howard was briefly continued to allow Appellant's attorney to appear.  After consulting with his attorney, Appellant finally decided to continue with representation of the indigent defendant. The trial judge awarded costs for investigative work and expert fees, which was substantially in excess of the statutory cap of $500. However, the court denied Appellant's motion to award attorney's fees in excess of the $3,500 statutory amount. The sole basis for denying Appellant an award of fees in excess of the statutory cap was his unprofessional conduct.  During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court accepted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the South Carolina Bar concerning the potential constitutional implications arising from the court appointment of attorneys to represent indigent clients.  The Supreme Court elected to address this matter of significant public interest.  The Court held that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is implicated when an attorney is appointed by the court to represent an indigent litigant.  In such circumstances, the attorney's services constitute property entitling the attorney to just compensation. However in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion for denying Appellant fees in excess of the statutory cap for his behavior at trial. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. View "Brown v. Howard" on Justia Law

After his conviction for homicide, Petitioner Lucas Bailey filed an unsuccessful application for post conviction relief. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleged his counsel failed to object to jury instructions that allowed the jury to convict him for an act that was not in the indictment. Upon careful consideration of the record below, the Supreme Court found that the trial judge may have engaged in an off-the-record discussion with the jury: "we are troubled that the decision regarding the jury instruction may have been made without the judge conferring with the attorneys." The Court vacated Petitioner's conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Bailey v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

The State appealed a circuit court order dismissing its case against Respondent Gregory Duncan. Respondent was indicted for murder after he shot and killed Christopher Spicer at his home. The court ruled that Respondent was immune from prosecution under the state Protection of Persons and Property Act. The Supreme Court found that the trial record reflected ample evidence to support the circuit court's ruling. The Court affirmed the circuit court's decision to dismiss the State's case. View "South Carolina v. Duncan" on Justia Law