Green v. Keel
Decision Date | 17 March 2021 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-089,Appellate Case No. 2019-000088 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Edward L. Green, Appellant, v. Mark Keel, Director, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the State of South Carolina, Respondents. |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Appeal From Richland County
DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Charles Thomas Brooks, III, of Law Office of Charles T. Brooks, III, of Sumter, for Appellant.
Adam L. Whitsett, of South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, of Columbia, for Respondent Mark Keel.
Assistant Attorney General Harley Littleton Kirkland, of Columbia, for Respondent State of South Carolina.
Edward L. Green appeals the circuit court's order granting Mark Keel's and South Carolina's (collectively, Respondents') motion for summary judgment in Green's action for declaratory judgment. On appeal, Green argues the circuit court erred in finding (1) a genuine issue of fact did not exist regarding viable remedies available to Green for removal from the South Carolina Sex Offender Registry (the registry) and (2) this action was barred by res judicata. We affirm.
The circuit court properly granted Respondents' motion for summary judgment. See Rule 56(c), SCRCP ( ); George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001) (). Here, there are no disputed facts; rather, Green contends he is entitled to equitable relief because his conviction that required him to register on the registry has been expunged. This court recently determined expungement does not affect sex offender registry requirements. Young v. Keel, 431 S.C. 554, 560, 848 S.E.2d 67, 70 (Ct. App. 2020), pet. for cert. filed, Case No. 2020-001486 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Nov. 9, 2020). Further, because expungement is a very different procedure than the reversal of a conviction, Green's argument that "expungement should equate to a reversal of his conviction" lacks merit. See id. at 558, 848 S.E.2d at 69 () . The plain language of section 23-3-460 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2020) requires persons convicted of certain crimes to register on the sex offender registry bi-annually for life.1 See id. (). Because the registry statute is clear and unambiguous, this court does not have the authority to create an equitableremedy. See Key Corp. Capital, Inc. v. County of Beaufort, 373 S.C. 55, 59, 644 S.E.2d 675, 677 (2007) ; id. ; id. at 61, 644 S.E.2d at 678 ; Santee Cooper, 298 S.C. at 185, 379 S.E.2d at 123 () ; id. (). Thus, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.2
AFFIRMED.3
1. Green concedes none of the statutory provisions for removal from the registry apply to...
To continue reading
Request your trial