In the Matter of The Care And Treatment of James Carl Miller
| Decision Date | 27 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 26995.,26995. |
| Citation | 713 S.E.2d 253,393 S.C. 248 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of James Carl MILLER, Petitioner. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.Justice BEATTY.
James Carl Miller (Miller) appealed the circuit court's order committing him to the custody of the Department of Mental Health under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA),1 asserting the State failed to try the case within sixty days of the probable cause hearing as mandated by the SVPA. The Court of Appeals affirmed Miller's civil commitment on the grounds the State properly moved for a continuance, the State established that there was good cause for the delay, and that Miller was not substantially prejudiced by the continuance. In re Care & Treatment of Miller, 385 S.C. 539, 685 S.E.2d 619 (Ct.App.2009). This Court granted Miller's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Although we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, we use this case as an opportunity to clarify certain procedural aspects of the SVPA. Specifically, we consider the appropriate remedy when the State fails to timely conduct a civil commitment trial within the time provisions mandated by the SVPA.
I. Factual/Procedural History
On September 6, 2001, Miller pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a child under the age of sixteen years and criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (CDVHAN).2 The circuit court sentenced Miller to fifteen years' imprisonment suspended upon the service of ten years' imprisonment with five years' probation for the lewd act charge and to ten years' imprisonment for CDVHAN. The sentences were to be served concurrently.
In May 2005, prior to his scheduled release date of December 1, 2005, the Department of Corrections referred Miller's case to the multidisciplinary team 3 to assess whether Miller constituted a “Sexually Violent Predator” (SVP) as defined by the SVPA. Having determined that Miller satisfied the statutory definition of an SVP, the multidisciplinary team referred the case to the prosecutor's review committee (committee).4 In turn, the committee found probable cause existed to believe that Miller was an SVP.5 Based on the committee's finding, the State petitioned the circuit court to conduct a hearing and make a judicial determination of probable cause.6
Although a probable cause hearing was initially scheduled for August 29, 2005, the circuit court did not conduct the hearing until November 3, 2005, due to a number of unforeseeable delays.7 On that same day, the circuit court found probable cause and issued an Order for Evaluation.8
Pursuant to section 44–48–90 of the SVPA, the circuit court had sixty days to conduct Miller's civil SVP trial.9 During this time, Miller was to remain incarcerated.
On December 29, 2005, the State moved for a continuance past the sixty-day deadline pursuant to section 44–48–90. In its motion, the State noted that January 2, 2006 was a holiday, and the last day for a trial of Miller's case would be December 30, 2005. Additionally, the State claimed the court-ordered evaluation of Miller would not be completed until January 31, 2006 due to problems in obtaining information regarding Miller's prior North Carolina convictions.10
On January 13, 2006, the circuit court held a hearing on the State's motion for a continuance. At the beginning of the hearing, the State informed the court that the mental health evaluation had been received that morning and the State was ready to proceed to trial. The circuit court set the case for January 17, 2006. In response to this ruling, Miller's counsel referenced the sixty-day time limit of the SVPA and asked that the case be dismissed as the State had not established “good cause” for the motion and Miller had been substantially prejudiced by the delay. In support of this argument, counsel relied on In re Care & Treatment of Matthews, 345 S.C. 638, 550 S.E.2d 311 (2001).11 The court, however, did not rule on the request but stated that Miller needed to file a formal motion to dismiss.
On January 17, 2006, Miller filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.12 In the motion, counsel argued that the State's petition “should be dismissed with prejudice due to the State's failure to pursue the prosecution of this matter in a reasonably timely manner.” Specifically, counsel claimed that the In opposition, the State claimed it had “good cause” for a continuance as the forensic psychiatrist, who conducted all of the state's SVP evaluations, was unable to complete the evaluation within the sixty-day time period.
Circuit Court Judge Larry R. Patterson conducted a hearing the same day the motion to dismiss was filed; however, the court did not rule on the motion but instead took it under advisement. On July 24, 2006, the court issued an order denying Miller's motion to dismiss. Although the court expressed its displeasure with the State's routine delay in initiating the SVP process, it found the State's interest in proceeding with the SVP trial outweighed the prejudice to Miller. Additionally, the court found there was no substantial prejudice to Miller.
On November 27, 2006, Circuit Court Judge James R. Barber, III conducted Miller's SVP jury trial. After the jury found Miller was an SVP, the court issued an Order of Commitment.13
Miller appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss as the SVP trial was not held within the sixty-day statutory limit and a continuance had not been granted. Additionally, Miller claimed he was substantially prejudiced by the delay as he was faced with the following two choices: (1) he could have proceeded to trial on January 13, 2006 without having an independent psychiatric evaluation, thus, depriving him of an opportunity to prepare a defense; or (2) he could have requested a continuance in order to obtain the independent psychiatric evaluation, which would have resulted in his continued incarceration past his release date.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Miller's civil commitment. In re Care & Treatment of Miller, 385 S.C. 539, 685 S.E.2d 619 (Ct.App.2009). Although the court recognized that the SVPA established a definite time-limit of sixty days, it found the State complied with Matthews by filing a motion for a continuance prior to the expiration of the sixty-day time period and noting why the case could not be tried within sixty days. Id. at 547, 685 S.E.2d at 623. The court also found the State established “good cause” for delay based on the following factors: (1) Miller's change of counsel delayed the case over thirty days; (2) a thorough report by the Department of Mental Health served the best interest of Miller as the report could have been in his favor; and (3) the grant of the State's motion for a continuance on January 13, 2006 was only ten days after the expiration of the sixty-day window set on November 3, 2005. Id. at 548, 685 S.E.2d at 624. Furthermore, the court concluded that Miller was not substantially prejudiced by the grant of a continuance as it allowed him the time to “adequately prepare for his trial and develop a trial strategy.” Id. at 549, 685 S.E.2d at 624.
Additionally, while recognizing that Miller was incarcerated past his release date, the court stated that it was “hesitant to set a bright line rule which would require reversal of an SVP's commitment when an individual is detained past his release date.” Id.
Despite its holding, the court expressed concern that Miller's civil commitment trial did not occur until well over a year after the probable cause hearing was held. Although the court found the facts of the case did not warrant reversal, it emphasized that “SVP trials should take priority when scheduling a court's docket, precisely because of the potential for the prolonged incarceration evidenced in this case.” Id. at 549, 685 S.E.2d at 624–25.
Following the denial of his petition for rehearing, Miller petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. This Court granted Miller's petition for a writ of certiorari.
II. Discussion
A.
Miller contends the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss as the SVP trial was not held within sixty days after the probable cause determination and a continuance had not been granted. In support of this contention, Miller claims the Court of Appeals misapprehended the significance of the issue in this case, “which is that [he] was incarcerated in the county detention center for over a year with no criminal charges pending because he had served the sentence he received for his criminal charge in 2001.” Accordingly, Miller asserts that he suffered substantial prejudice as a result of the State's motion for a continuance.
Miller also challenges the Court of Appeals' finding that the State established “good cause” for the delay. Specifically, Miller avers the State had “the information [it] claimed was the cause of the delay.” Miller also contends the State acted in an “unfair manner” by informing the circuit court that it was ready to proceed for trial on the day it received the psychiatric evaluation as this forced him to choose between proceeding to trial without an independent evaluation or moving for a continuance, which in turn resulted in an extended period of incarceration.
B.
“The grant or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...the Court of Appeals and this Court. In re the Care and Treatment of Miller, 385 S.C. 539, 685 S.E.2d 619 (Ct.App.2009), aff'd,393 S.C. 248, 713 S.E.2d 253 (2011). On August 28, 2008, Miller's probation officer issued a probation citation and supporting affidavit. In the box on the citation......
-
Blue Star Rental & Sales, Inc. v. Ridge Environmental, LLC
...occurs when the conclusions of the trial court are either controlled by an error of law or are based on unsupported factual conclusions." Id. (quoting Kiriakides Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 382 S.C. 8, 20, 675 S.E.2d 439, 445 (2009)). LAW/ANALYSIS Blue Star argues the trial court erred ......
-
Rental v. Ridge Envtl., LLC
...to dismiss a case is within the purview of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Miller, 393 S.C. 248,256, 713 S.E.2d 253, 257 (2011). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court are either controlled by an error of law or ......
-
In re Care and Treatment of Taft
...exercised its discretion in finding that these unforeseen delays constituted "good cause" to grant the continuance. See Miller, 393 S.C. at 257, 713 S.E.2d at 257 (finding "good cause" for a continuance when the State established "unforeseeable delays" including the fact that the court-appo......