Justice v. State, 2022-UP-186

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
PartiesWilliam Bruce Justice, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decision Date04 May 2022
Docket NumberAppellate Case 2017-001718,2022-UP-186

William Bruce Justice, Petitioner,
v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

No. 2022-UP-186

Appellate Case No. 2017-001718

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

May 4, 2022


THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDINGEXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted March 1, 2022

Appeal From Lexington County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Lillian Loch Meadows, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

In this post-conviction relief (PCR) action, William Bruce Justice challenges his parole revocation, arguing he was denied the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses at his parole revocation hearings, the right to disclosure of the State's evidence against him, and the right to be heard and to present evidence

1

on his behalf. Petitioner also contends S.C. Code Ann. § 24‒21‒50 (2007), which denies inmates the "right of confrontation" at a parole revocation hearing, violates due process. He further claims the parole board's hearing and pre-hearing practices and procedures deprive pro se inmates pertinent case information and discovery, and abridge the right to counsel because lawyers are "rarely" appointed for inmates. We dismiss the petition as moot.

I.

A jury convicted Petitioner in 1989 of four counts of second-degree burglary, two counts of grand larceny, and two counts of petit larceny. Petitioner was granted parole in 2012, at which time he had not yet completed service of three of his sentences for second-degree burglary. In 2013, Petitioner was arrested for violating his parole. After a preliminary and a final hearing, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services (SCDPPS) revoked Petitioner's parole. In 2014, Petitioner filed this PCR application challenging his parole revocation. The PCR court found Petitioner failed to establish any constitutional violations or deprivations of due process. Petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of certiorari.

We granted the petition to review the questions presented by Petitioner. However, Petitioner has now been released from incarceration, having fully served his sentence. Petitioner argues even though he is no longer incarcerated, his issues are not moot as SCDPPS's conduct is likely to repeat itself and evade judicial review. We disagree.

Petitioner's issues are moot as he is no longer in prison. Any decision we could make as to the merits of his case would have no practical legal effect. See Midland Guardian Co. v. Thacker, 280 S.C. 563, 566, 314 S.E.2d 26, 28 (Ct. App...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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