527 S.E.2d 398 (S.C.App. 2000), 3112, Anderson v. State

Docket Nº:3112.
Citation:527 S.E.2d 398, 338 S.C. 629
Party Name:338 S.C. 629 Moses ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Case Date:February 07, 2000
Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Page 398

527 S.E.2d 398 (S.C.App. 2000)

338 S.C. 629

Moses ANDERSON, Appellant,


STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

No. 3112.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Feb. 7, 2000.

Submitted Dec. 7, 1999.

Page 399

[338 S.C. 630] Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, SC Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

[338 S.C. 631] Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy, Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy, Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, Assistant Attorney General J. Benjamin Aplin, Columbia, for respondent.

HUFF, Judge:

Moses Anderson appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus. We affirm the appealed order, but remand for a subject matter jurisdiction hearing.


In 1985, Anderson received a life sentence upon conviction for murder in York County. He then unsuccessfully pursued two applications for post-conviction relief, a belated direct appeal, and a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Anderson then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the circuit court to order the York County Clerk of Court to provide him copies of (1) the grand jury transcripts involving his indictment, (2) a list of the grand jurors who considered his indictment, and (3) documentary proof that the grand jury was qualified by a circuit judge in open court. The circuit court dismissed Anderson's petition, noting the "York County Clerk of Court is under no duty to produce these documents and [Anderson] has no specific legal right to them because they are all secret." Anderson filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. Anderson then filed this appeal.


I. Writ of Mandamus

Anderson argues the trial court erred in denying his petition for a writ of mandamus for production of the proceedings of the grand jury that indicted him. We disagree.

"The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right and to enforce a corresponding imperative duty created or imposed by law." Porter v. Jedziniak, 334 S.C. 16, 18, 512 S.E.2d 497, 497 (1999). A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to require the performance of an act "must show (1) a duty of respondent to perform the act, (2) the ministerial nature of the act, (3) the petitioner's specific [338 S.C. 632] legal right for which discharge of the duty is necessary, and...

To continue reading