James Woodrow Lewis

The case involved three defendants who pleaded guilty to exhibiting obscene films and were sentenced to prison terms, after which they sought post-conviction relief to withdraw the pleas on grounds that the pleas were not voluntary or knowing, that they were prosecuted under repealed statutes, and that counsel was ineffective. The trial court granted relief and allowed the defendants another opportunity to plead, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the sentences. The majority held that the pleas were voluntary and knowing because the record from the plea hearing and post-conviction hearing showed the defendants understood the charges, admitted guilt, and chose the timing of the pleas as a calculated strategy to appear before a particular judge. Claims about the statutes were rejected because the indictments used current language and no excessive-sentence allegations were made, while the ineffective-counsel claim was deemed waived by stipulation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether Circuit Court Rule 95, which directs a solicitor to take action on a warrant within ninety days of receipt, is jurisdictional so that noncompliance would strip the court of authority to proceed. The trial court refused to quash the indictment, ruling the provision administrative rather than jurisdictional, and the appellate court affirmed. The opinion explained that the rule is silent on jurisdiction, was adopted to promote orderly and prompt case handling, and does not itself set the standard for constitutional speedy-trial guarantees; noncompliance therefore does not invalidate a warrant or bar later prosecution, though it could expose the solicitor to contempt proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns whether an insurance agent has a private right to sue under South Carolina Code Section 38-37-940(2) for the termination of his agency agreement by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the plaintiff does have such a private cause of action for agreements executed after the relevant precedent. The court's reasoning relies on its prior decision in G-H Insurance Agency v. Travelers Insurance Company, which established the private enforcement provision, with retroactive application limited by later cases to avoid constitutional issues under the contract clause.

business & regulatory

This case concerned the constitutionality of a South Carolina statute that imposed a 20% license tax on admissions to movies rated "X" by the Motion Picture Association of America or unrated films. The plaintiff sought to have the law declared unconstitutional and enjoined from enforcement. The trial court ruled the statute invalid on grounds including improper delegation of legislative power, and the state supreme court affirmed solely on that basis. The court reasoned that the law unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to the private MPAA by allowing it, without statutory guidelines, to determine which films would be subject to the tax, citing prior precedent against such reliance on private discretion.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a wrongful death action against the South Carolina Department of Mental Health and four staff physicians, alleging negligence in the treatment, discharge, and failure to warn the public about a mental patient who killed someone two months after release from a state facility. The defendants demurred based on a specific immunity statute (Section 44-17-900) protecting those who participate in releasing mental patients, while the plaintiff relied on a later general statute (Section 44-7-50) that modifies sovereign immunity for state medical facilities up to $100,000 in damages. The court determined that the specific immunity provision for patient releases was not repealed by the general statute and bars claims based on discharge decisions, but the complaint also alleged independent grounds like improper treatment and failure to warn that fall outside that immunity, so the demurrer was properly overruled. The order was affirmed as modified, with the case remanded for trial on the non-immune claims.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In Thompson v. Aiken, the petitioner, convicted of murder during an armed robbery and sentenced to death, sought post-conviction relief after his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. The South Carolina Supreme Court focused on the solicitor's closing argument in the sentencing phase, which expressed personal opinions about seeking the death penalty and other improper statements, similar to arguments deemed prejudicial in prior cases. The court concluded that these arguments introduced an arbitrary factor into the jury's deliberations, reversing the denial of relief and granting a new sentencing trial. Other claims, including alleged withheld evidence and racial discrimination in prosecutorial decisions, were not resolved as they would be moot or inappropriate in this context upon retrial.

criminal lawprocedure