Crooks v. State, No. 24615

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtWALLER; FINNEY; TOAL
Citation485 S.E.2d 374,326 S.C. 171
PartiesThomas D. CROOKS, Jr., Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 24615
Decision Date19 March 1997

Page 374

485 S.E.2d 374
326 S.C. 171
Thomas D. CROOKS, Jr., Respondent,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
No. 24615.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard March 19, 1997.
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.

ISSUE

Did the PCR judge err in giving Respondent an additional ninety days' credit for time served on his sentence?

DISCUSSION

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
9 practice notes
  • Solley v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Inc., No. 4937.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 1, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 19, 1997
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 19, 1999
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 13, 2000
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Solley v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Inc., No. 4937.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 1, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 19, 1997
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 19, 1999
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 13, 2000
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT