Haggins v. State, 26463.
| Decision Date | 24 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 26463.,26463. |
| Citation | 659 S.E.2d 170,377 S.C. 135 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Terrence HAGGINS, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
Appeal from Lancaster County; Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent.
The State petitioned the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 227, SCACR, for a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order granting respondent's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). The Court of Appeals denied the State's petition by letter without issuing a formal order or opinion.1 We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari made pursuant to Rule 226, SCACR, to review the Court of Appeals' denial and now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. We hold that, as a matter of policy, we will not entertain Rule 226 petitions where the Court of Appeals has exercised its discretion and denied a Rule 227 petition, and no formal opinion or order has been filed.
This Court has held that it will grant certiorari to the Court of Appeals "only where special reasons justify the exercise of that power." In re Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal and Post-Conviction Relief Cases, 321 S.C. 563, 471 S.E.2d 454 (1990), cited with approval in Douglas v. State, 369 S.C. 213, 631 S.E.2d 542 (2006) () and in Dunlap v. State, 371 S.C. 585, 641 S.E.2d 431 (2007) ().
A decision by the Court of Appeals to grant or deny a writ of PCR certiorari is a matter committed to that court's discretion. The decision to deny PCR certiorari can never be deemed "a special reason" justifying the exercise of our discretion, nor can an informal "letter denial" meet any of the five criteria we consider when determining whether to grant certiorari to a decision of the Court of Appeals. See Rule 226(b), SCACR.2
We therefore hold that we will not entertain Rule 226 petitions for writ of certiorari to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Benjamin
...grant certiorari to the court of appeals only where special reasons justify the exercise of that discretion. Haggins v. State , 377 S.C. 135, 136, 659 S.E.2d 170, 170 (2008) ; In re Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal Post-Conviction Relief Cases , 321 S.C. 563, 564, 471 S.E.2d 454, 45......
-
Brenco v. Dept. of Transp.
... ... See Owens v. S.C. State Hwy. Dept., 239 S.C. 44, 54, 121 S.E.2d 240, 245 (1961) (landowner has the burden of proving its ... ...
-
Missouri v. State
...for a writ of certiorari and appendix pursuant to Rule 226, SCACR, in this Court. Meanwhile, this Court held in Haggins v. State, 377 S.C. 135, 659 S.E.2d 170 (2008), that it will not entertain a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 226 in a PCR matter where there has been a "......
-
State v. Lyles
...held it will grant certiorari to the Court of Appeals only where special reasons justify the exercise of that power. Haggins v. State, 377 S.C. 135, 659 S.E.2d 170 (2008); In re Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal Post-Conviction Relief Cases, supra. Further, Rule 226(b), SCACR, emphas......