Crooks v. State, No. 24615
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | WALLER; FINNEY; TOAL |
| Citation | 485 S.E.2d 374,326 S.C. 171 |
| Parties | Thomas D. CROOKS, Jr., Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 24615 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1997 |
Page 374
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Decided May 12, 1997.
[326 S.C. 172] Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, John W. McIntosh, Deputy Attorney General, Teresa A. Knox, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and Matthew M. McGuire, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, for petitioner.
Dwight F. Drake, Jeffrey A. Jacobs and Theodore D. Riley, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., Columbia, for respondent.
Page 375
WALLER, Justice.
The State has appealed an order granting postconviction relief to Respondent Crooks. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
[326 S.C. 173] FACTS
On May 10, 1991, Respondent Crooks pled guilty to three counts of unlawful use of telephone. He was sentenced to ten years, suspended to five years with three years probation. He was incarcerated until February 24, 1993, when he was released on supervised furlough.
On April 7, 1993, Respondent was served with two arrest warrants: one for violation of his supervised furlough and one for unlawful use of telephone ("April 7 warrant"). On this date Respondent was taken back into custody and was subsequently returned to the Department of Corrections to complete his original sentence. He completed this sentence on June 3, 1993.
The arrest warrant for unlawful use of telephone served on April 7, 1993 was still outstanding. Consequently, on June 3, 1993 Respondent was taken back into custody. On July 7, 1993, while in custody awaiting disposition of this outstanding charge, Respondent was served with another arrest warrant for unlawful use of telephone ("July 7 warrant"). Respondent pled guilty to these two remaining charges on January 31, 1994. He received a sentence of ten years, suspended to six years with three years probation. Respondent was given credit for time served on both charges beginning July 7, 1993.
Respondent did not appeal his convictions. On March 30, 1994, he filed an application for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing held September 6, 1995, the PCR judge granted post-conviction relief, finding Respondent did not receive enough credit for time served. The judge ordered Respondent be given additional credit for time served on both charges for the period between April 7, 1993 and July 7, 1993.
Did the PCR judge err in giving Respondent an additional ninety days' credit for time served on his sentence?
The State argues the PCR judge erred in giving Respondent credit for time served beginning in April 7, 1993. We agree.
[326 S.C. 174] When Respondent was served with the arrest warrant for unlawful use of telephone on April 7, 1993, he was still serving a prior sentence. It is clear that persons on supervised furlough are still considered to be serving their sentences. See S.C.Code Ann. § 24-13-710 (1977); S.C.Code Ann. § 24-13-720 (1977). In an analogous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solley v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Inc., No. 4937.
...held the issues raised by the defendant, not having been timely raised prior to the entry of default, were waived. Id. at 171, 485 S.E.2d at 374. The Bank first raised this issue in its Rule 59(e), SCRCP, or in the alternative Rule 60(b), SCRCP, motion to reconsider and to set aside judgmen......
-
Bardoon Properties, NV v. Eidolon Corp., No. 24616
...hear a case of the general class (in this instance, a breach of contract claim). We hold the issue of whether a party is a "real party in [326 S.C. 171] interest" does not involve Page 374 subject matter jurisdiction. 4 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly held the issues raised by E......
-
Thompson v. SC DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY, No. 24937.
...S.C. 740, 259 S.E.2d 602 (1979); Sanders v. MacDougall, 244 S.C. 160, 135 S.E.2d 836 (1964), or "supervised furlough." Crooks v. State, 326 S.C. 171, 485 S.E.2d 374 "Term of imprisonment" as used in § 56-5-2945 means the non-fine part of criminal sentence, and includes suspended portions, p......
-
Allen v. State, No. 25086.
...statutory maximum. The state conceded this issue and Allen was granted relief and the matter is not before the Court. 3. Crooks v. State, 326 S.C. 171, 485 S.E.2d 374 (1997) involved an inmate on supervised furlough who was served with an arrest warrant and re-incarcerated for another offen......
-
Solley v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Inc., No. 4937.
...held the issues raised by the defendant, not having been timely raised prior to the entry of default, were waived. Id. at 171, 485 S.E.2d at 374. The Bank first raised this issue in its Rule 59(e), SCRCP, or in the alternative Rule 60(b), SCRCP, motion to reconsider and to set aside judgmen......
-
Bardoon Properties, NV v. Eidolon Corp., No. 24616
...hear a case of the general class (in this instance, a breach of contract claim). We hold the issue of whether a party is a "real party in [326 S.C. 171] interest" does not involve Page 374 subject matter jurisdiction. 4 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly held the issues raised by E......
-
Thompson v. SC DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY, No. 24937.
...S.C. 740, 259 S.E.2d 602 (1979); Sanders v. MacDougall, 244 S.C. 160, 135 S.E.2d 836 (1964), or "supervised furlough." Crooks v. State, 326 S.C. 171, 485 S.E.2d 374 "Term of imprisonment" as used in § 56-5-2945 means the non-fine part of criminal sentence, and includes suspended portions, p......
-
Allen v. State, No. 25086.
...statutory maximum. The state conceded this issue and Allen was granted relief and the matter is not before the Court. 3. Crooks v. State, 326 S.C. 171, 485 S.E.2d 374 (1997) involved an inmate on supervised furlough who was served with an arrest warrant and re-incarcerated for another offen......