Beckner v. State, 22912
| Decision Date | 24 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 22912,22912 |
| Citation | 373 S.E.2d 469,296 S.C. 365 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | John Hawk BECKNER, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Asst. Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Salley W. Elliott, Columbia, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). After his counsel filed a petition to be relieved on the basis that no issues of arguable merit were involved, this Court denied the petition to be relieved and directed the parties to address two questions. See Johnson v. State, 294 S.C. 310, 364 S.E.2d 201 (1988). We grant certiorari, dispense with further briefing and reverse.
Petitioner pled guilty to distribution of marijuana, second offense, and was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years, suspended upon the service of five years with five years probation. One of the conditions of probation is that petitioner will not "be in a place of business that sells alcohol."
At the PCR hearing, petitioner asserted that this condition was unreasonable and therefore invalid. The PCR judge, who had also been the sentencing judge, upheld the validity of this condition.
Under S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-430 (1976), a trial judge has broad discretion in imposing conditions of probation, and the conditions which he may impose are not limited to those enumerated in the statute. State v. Wilson, 274 S.C. 352, 264 S.E.2d 414 (1980). Conditions of probation must, however, be reasonable. 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1571(8) (1961); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 570 (1981).
While the challenged condition may have been reasonable at an earlier time, we do not believe that the condition is reasonable in today's society where alcohol is sold in a wide variety of businesses. The practical effect of the challenged condition is to prohibit petitioner from entering or working in virtually every grocery and convenience store in South Carolina. Additionally, it excludes petitioner from a large number of restaurants in this State.
The burden imposed on petitioner by this condition is greatly disproportionate to any rehabilitative function it may serve. Therefore, it is our opinion that the condition is unreasonable. 1
Accordingly, the portion of the PCR judge's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...in order to help place a shooting victim in the Cadillac and drive him to the hospital. Furthermore, relying on Beckner v. State, 296 S.C. 365, 373 S.E.2d 469 (1988), Appellant contends this condition violates due process and is generally unenforceable because it is overly broad. Appellant ......
-
State v. Hicks
...must be reasonable and judges cannot impose conditions that are illegal and void as against public policy. Beckner v. State, 296 S.C. 365, 366, 373 S.E.2d 469, 469(1988); Brown, 284 S.C. at 410, 326 S.E.2d at 411. As the Court stated in Various conditions of probation generally have been up......
-
State v. Hall
...or likely to be present could be literally applied to prohibit [defendant] from shopping at virtually any store"); Beckner v. State, 296 S.C. 365, 373 S.E.2d 469 (1988) (holding a condition that defendant not be in any place that serves alcohol unreasonable because it has the practical effe......
-
State v. Wickenhauser
...has held similar restrictions to be unreasonable and disproportionate to any intended rehabilitative function. See Beckner v. State, 296 S.C. 365, 373 S.E.2d 469 (1988). Accordingly, we reverse and vacate this The judgment of the circuit court is AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. HARWE......