Costa M. Pleicones

The case concerns the South Carolina Supreme Court's review of a Court of Appeals decision in South Carolina Department of Corrections v. Cartrette. After initially granting a writ of certiorari to examine the lower court's ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the writ had been improvidently granted. The Court therefore dismissed the writ without further proceedings. All participating justices concurred in the dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Michau v. Georgetown County, an employee sought workers' compensation benefits for alleged repetitive trauma injuries to his shoulders from operating a motor grader, claiming medical expenses and temporary total disability. The South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission denied the claim after considering medical evidence from both sides, including an opinion from the employer's expert attributing the shoulder problems to preexisting arthritis rather than work activities. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that section 42-1-172 of the South Carolina Code requires medical opinions or testimony in repetitive trauma claims to be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty for admissibility. The court held that the statute applies to expert opinions from both claimants and employers and that the Commission erred in admitting the non-compliant opinion from the employer's doctor. The matter was sent back for the Commission to evaluate the claim using only the remaining competent evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Tykat, Inc., a private company, owed ad valorem taxes on its leasehold interest in property owned by the tax-exempt South Carolina Public Service Authority, which Tykat used as a campground. The Administrative Law Court upheld the tax assessment by Clarendon County, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that decision while also affirming the denial of the county's request for attorneys' fees. The court reasoned that under the plain language of South Carolina Code section 12-37-950, a leasehold estate conveyed by a tax-exempt grantor to a non-exempt grantee must be valued and taxed as real estate, regardless of the use. Precedents cited by Tykat addressed only the tax status of the exempt owner, not the lessee, and did not override the statute.

taxesproperty

This case concerns a petition filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel seeking to place an attorney on interim suspension under the South Carolina Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the petition without elaboration, ordering that the respondent's license to practice law be suspended until further direction from the court. The order relies directly on Rule 17(b) of the applicable disciplinary rules. Justice Pleicones did not participate in the decision.

procedure

The case concerned a minor who pled guilty to two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature based on incidents of sexual contact with two younger boys. The family court imposed probation with conditions that included inpatient sex offender treatment and placement on South Carolina's private sex offender registry. On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the registration order. The court held that the family court judge acted within his discretion by finding good cause for registration after considering the facts, circumstances, and professional evaluation report showing multiple risk factors for sexual reoffense.

criminal lawfamily law

This case concerns a lawyer who had been suspended from practice for a period of ninety days, retroactive to March 31, 2009. The respondent submitted an affidavit requesting reinstatement in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the reinstatement request, allowing the individual to resume the practice of law in the state. The order was issued by the Acting Chief Justice, with the Chief Justice not participating in the matter.

procedure

This case involves a petition by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to the South Carolina Supreme Court seeking interim suspension of attorney Sarratt's law license and the appointment of another attorney to manage his clients' matters. The court granted the petition, suspending the respondent's license to practice law until further order and appointing Carlos Johnson, Esquire, to oversee the respondent's client files and financial accounts. The order authorizes Johnson to take necessary actions to protect client interests, including managing accounts and receiving mail, with the appointment limited to no more than nine months unless extended. The decision is based on the applicable rules of lawyer disciplinary enforcement, specifically Rules 17(b) and 31.

procedure

This case concerns an attorney disciplinary proceeding in which the respondent lawyer had been placed on interim suspension. The court relieves the previously appointed attorney tasked with protecting clients' interests and instead appoints Jeff Zeigler Brooker, III to assume control over the respondent's client files, trust accounts, operating accounts, and related law office matters. Brooker is authorized to make necessary disbursements, receive mail, and take other steps required by Rule 31 of the South Carolina Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, with the appointment limited to nine months unless extended. The order also directs banks and the postal service to recognize the new appointee's authority and restricts the respondent's access to accounts.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a petition filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel seeking interim suspension of the Beaufort County Clerk of Court from the practice of law. The respondent had been indicted on charges of misconduct in office and embezzlement of public funds, prompting the request under Rule 17(b) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement on grounds that she posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public or the administration of justice. The court granted the petition and ordered the respondent suspended from practicing law in the state until further order. This decision was issued by Justice Costa M. Pleicones on behalf of the court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a licensed attorney who was arrested and charged with six counts of willfully failing to file state income tax returns and failing to pay taxes, in violation of South Carolina Code section 12-54-44(B)(3). The Office of Disciplinary Counsel petitioned the court for an interim suspension of the attorney's license under Rule 17 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the petition and ordered the suspension of the respondent's law license until further order. Chief Justice Toal did not participate in the decision.

criminal lawtaxes

The case concerned Jim Aaron's South Carolina action to enforce a California money judgment (later domesticated via an Indiana judgment) against Susan Mahl, arising from Mahl's former law firm's fraud and fiduciary-duty claims; the judgment had been assigned to Aaron for collection under an agreement entitling him to half the proceeds. The trial court dismissed Aaron's complaint, ruling the assignment invalid under California law and that Aaron's claims were barred by unclean hands due to his personal relationship with Mahl and nondisclosure of the collection agreement. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Indiana judgment had already resolved the assignment's validity against Mahl, that any alleged fraud was intrinsic and therefore not a basis to relitigate the foreign judgments, and that the trial court erred in refusing to give the Indiana judgment full faith and credit.

procedure

This case involves an attorney who was suspended from practicing law for one year, retroactive to October 4, 2006. The attorney filed a Petition for Reinstatement, which was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness for review under applicable court rules. Following a hearing, the Committee recommended granting the petition, and neither the petitioner nor the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed any exceptions to that recommendation. The court accepted the recommendation and ordered the attorney reinstated to the practice of law.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Rye, the defendant was convicted of murder after fatally shooting an off-duty deputy who had trespassed on his property with others and killed several of his pet cats. Rye raised defenses of self-defense and defense of habitation at trial. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court's jury instruction on the defense of habitation was incomplete because it failed to explain that the defense permits the use of reasonably necessary force to end an unwarranted intrusion on one's premises. The court noted that a proper charge on this defense, supported by the evidence, was required and its omission constituted reversible error.

criminal law

This case concerns a lawyer who had been suspended from practice for six months, with the suspension made retroactive to November 2006. The attorney filed an affidavit seeking reinstatement under Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the reinstatement request, allowing the lawyer to resume practicing law in the state. The order notes that one justice did not participate in the decision.

procedure

This case concerns a South Carolina attorney who was indicted in federal court on thirty counts of mail fraud. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition seeking interim suspension of the respondent's law license under Rule 17 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the petition and ordered the respondent suspended from the practice of law in the state until further order. The ruling is based solely on the existence of the criminal indictment and the applicable disciplinary rule, with no other findings or participation by one justice noted.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a licensed attorney who pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution under federal law. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel petitioned the court for an interim suspension of the attorney's license to practice and for the appointment of another lawyer to safeguard client interests, and the respondent consented to the suspension. The court granted the petition, ordering the immediate suspension of the license until further order and appointing Stephen D. Searcy to assume control of client files, trust accounts, and other office accounts as required by the applicable rules. The appointment is limited to a maximum of nine months unless extended by the court, and the order provides mechanisms to notify banks and postal services of the changes in authority.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Alphonso Duckson seeking post-conviction relief after his parole was revoked, claiming his retained attorney provided ineffective assistance at the revocation hearing. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the PCR court's denial of relief, holding that the claim was not cognizable under the Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act because parole revocation proceedings are administrative rather than criminal. The court reasoned that no Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches in such hearings, and although a due process right might apply in some circumstances, Duckson had been represented by counsel and did not allege any due process violation that would render the revocation unlawful. A concurring justice agreed with the result but differed on whether the claim could be brought.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a negligence lawsuit brought by the estates of three accident victims and one injured survivor against Anderson County and its Sheriff's Department. The plaintiffs alleged gross negligence in the failure to execute a probate court detention order for a mentally ill individual who later caused a fatal car collision. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on claims based on alleged breaches of statutory duties under mental health commitment laws, applying the public duty rule. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutes did not create a special duty to the plaintiffs as an identifiable class because any duty was owed to the public generally. The court declined to address the appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the constitutionality of liability caps under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, as such denials are not directly appealable.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a challenge by St. Andrews Public Service District, a special purpose district, to the City of Charleston's annexations of six parcels and adjacent roadways under the 75% and 100% petition methods, where the roadways were used to establish contiguity. The circuit court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, but the Court of Appeals reversed, allowing a non-statutory party to challenge the annexations as void under Quinn v. City of Columbia. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, overruled Quinn to the extent it permitted such challenges by non-statutory parties other than the State in a quo warranto action, and held that the district lacked both statutory standing and any infringement of proprietary interests or rights. The court also confirmed that the annexations satisfied the contiguity requirement because the annexed roadways abutted existing city property with proper consent.

procedure

In State v. Timmons, the defendant was indicted for possession of crack cocaine but pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of possession of cocaine, leading to an appeal challenging the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of possession of crack cocaine. The court applied the elements test, finding that possession of crack cocaine requires proof of all elements needed for possession of cocaine plus the additional requirement that the substance be in a smokable alkaloidal form. It also cited precedent from State v. Jackson to support this conclusion, determining that the indictment for crack cocaine therefore conferred jurisdiction to accept the plea to simple cocaine possession.

criminal law