Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed the Court of Appeals' decision invalidating respondent's sentence of life without parole. Respondent was convicted of second-degree arson and sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). The Court of Appeals affirmed the second-degree arson conviction, but reversed and remanded as to the LWOP sentence finding the use of a 1979 burning conviction was inappropriate for sentence enhancement purposes. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erroneously interpreted former section 16-11110(B), though the Court noted that the impact of this erroneous interpretation has been limited by the 2010 amendment to the statute. The portion of the Court of Appeals' opinion reversing respondent's sentence was affirmed as modified. View "South Carolina v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Nathan Stallings leased a home in Mt. Pleasant where he lived with his fiancee and a roommate. He used an internet networking site to meet other poker players, and established a regular Sunday night game in his home. Players would buy into the game for a minimum of $5 and a maximum of $20. Respondents Robert Chimento, Scott Richards, Michael Williamson, Jeremy Brestel and John Willis were convicted in municipal court of violating S.C. Code Ann. 16-19-40(a) (2003) which made it unlawful to "play . . . in any house used as a place of gaming . . . any game with cards. . . ." after they were found playing Texas Hold'em and gambling in Stallings' home. On appeal, the circuit court reversed respondents’ convictions finding they were entitled to directed verdicts or, alternatively, that section 16-19-40(a) was unconstitutional. The municipal judge found, based on expert testimony presented by the respondents, that Texas Hold'em is a game of skill. The municipal judge also held that if a game of skill were without the ambit of gaming, then he would acquit the respondents, but that there was no clear indication whether the legislature intended to criminalize only gambling on games of chance. At the hearing, the municipal judge declined to find section 16-19-40 unconstitutional. The circuit court reversed, and the Town appealed that order. The issues before the Supreme Court were reduced to: (1) whether respondents were entitled to directed verdicts because betting money on a game of skill at a residence is not prohibited by section 16-19-40; and (2) if respondents were not entitled to directed verdicts, should their convictions have been set aside because section 16-19-40(a) was unconstitutional? The Court found that the circuit court erred in reversing respondents' convictions, and therefore the order on appeal is itself was reversed. View "Town of Mount Pleasant v. Chimento" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of murder and possession of a weapon during a crime of violence and received concurrent sentences of life (murder) and five years (weapon). On appeal, he alleged the trial judge committed reversible error in charging the jury that they were acting "for the community" and that their verdict "will represent truth and justice for all parties that are involved." The Supreme Court agreed that these charges were erroneous, but because appellant did not properly preserve his issues for appeal, the Court affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jason Ervin Black appealed his convictions for criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor in the first degree and committing a lewd act upon a minor. Petitioner contended on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the State to impeach his defense witness with two manslaughter convictions that were more than ten years old because their introduction violated Rules 404 and 609 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence (SCRE), and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Black" on Justia Law

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.