Lance v. State, No. 21925

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation303 S.E.2d 100,279 S.C. 144
PartiesJessie Robert LANCE, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decision Date12 May 1983
Docket NumberNo. 21925

Page 100

303 S.E.2d 100
279 S.C. 144
Jessie Robert LANCE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 21925.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 12, 1983.

Page 101

Deputy Appellate Defender David W. Carpenter, of S.C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

[279 S.C. 145] Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka and Larry L. Vanderbilt, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Over an eighteen-month period, the appellant suffered three convictions of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquors and two convictions of driving a motor vehicle under a suspended license to drive. He was later adjudicated a habitual traffic offender under the South Carolina Habitual Offender Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 56-1-1010 through 1130 (1976), and was ordered not to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of the State for five years. The appellant then filed an application for post-conviction relief and received a hearing where he contested the habitual offender adjudication as well as the traffic offenses which supported it. The hearing judge denied relief, ruling in part that a judgment from a hearing conducted under the Habitual Offender Act could not be contested under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. We affirm.

The provisions of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 17-27-10 through 120 (1976), may be invoked only by one claiming the right to have a sentence from a criminal conviction vacated, set aside or corrected. Rule 1, Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act; Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414 (1982). The determination by a circuit judge that a person is a habitual offender is not a criminal conviction, and the consequent loss of the privilege to drive is not a sentence. Loss of the driver's license constitutes no part of the punishment for the underlying traffic offenses; the sanction is civil and not criminal in its nature. See Parker v. State Highway Department, 224 S.C. 263, 78 S.E.2d 382 (1953). We conclude that a judgment from a hearing conducted under the Habitual Offender Act does not result in a sentence from a criminal conviction and, therefore, cannot be contested under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

We have carefully considered the remaining exception argued by appellant and are of the view that no question of [279 S.C. 146] precedential value or error of law appears. It is disposed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Williams v. Reynolds, C/A No. 2:16-2835-CMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 14, 2017
    ...considered on appeal."). Therefore, this ground was not exhausted and is procedurally barred. Petitioner objects, citing Lance v. State, 279 S.C. 144 (1983), renewing his request for discovery on this point, and arguing the merits of the issue. ECF No. 57 at 17-20. Petitioner argues the PCR......
  • Hawley v. Hawley, No. 3957.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 3, 2005
    ...concur. -------- Notes: 1. None of these holdings are involved in this appeal. 2. 279 S.C. 148, 303 S.E.2d 97 (1983). 3. Id. at 152, 303 S.E.2d at 100; see also 61A Am.Jur.2d Pleading § 152, at 146 (1999) ("The prayer for relief is not an irrelevant portion of the pleading, and, although it......
  • Hawley v. Hawley, Opinion No. 3957 (SC 3/7/2005), Opinion No. 3957.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...--------------- Notes: 1. None of these holdings are involved in this appeal. 2. 279 S.C. 148, 303 S.E.2d 97 (1983). 3. Id. at 152, 303 S.E.2d at 100; see also 61A Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 152, at 146 (1999) ("The prayer for relief is not an irrelevant portion of the pleading, and, although i......
  • Williams v. Reynolds, C/A No. 2:16-cv-2835-CMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 20, 2018
    ..."exceptional circumstances" to apply Rule 60(b) are not met. Petitioner also renews his "ground four" argument regarding Lance v. State, 303 S.E. 2d 100 (S.C. 1983) and attaches his state court PCR documents, ostensibly to argue he did raise this issue in state court and therefore it is not......
4 cases
  • Williams v. Reynolds, C/A No. 2:16-2835-CMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 14, 2017
    ...considered on appeal."). Therefore, this ground was not exhausted and is procedurally barred. Petitioner objects, citing Lance v. State, 279 S.C. 144 (1983), renewing his request for discovery on this point, and arguing the merits of the issue. ECF No. 57 at 17-20. Petitioner argues the PCR......
  • Hawley v. Hawley, No. 3957.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 3, 2005
    ...concur. -------- Notes: 1. None of these holdings are involved in this appeal. 2. 279 S.C. 148, 303 S.E.2d 97 (1983). 3. Id. at 152, 303 S.E.2d at 100; see also 61A Am.Jur.2d Pleading § 152, at 146 (1999) ("The prayer for relief is not an irrelevant portion of the pleading, and, although it......
  • Hawley v. Hawley, Opinion No. 3957 (SC 3/7/2005), Opinion No. 3957.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...--------------- Notes: 1. None of these holdings are involved in this appeal. 2. 279 S.C. 148, 303 S.E.2d 97 (1983). 3. Id. at 152, 303 S.E.2d at 100; see also 61A Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 152, at 146 (1999) ("The prayer for relief is not an irrelevant portion of the pleading, and, although i......
  • Williams v. Reynolds, C/A No. 2:16-cv-2835-CMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 20, 2018
    ..."exceptional circumstances" to apply Rule 60(b) are not met. Petitioner also renews his "ground four" argument regarding Lance v. State, 303 S.E. 2d 100 (S.C. 1983) and attaches his state court PCR documents, ostensibly to argue he did raise this issue in state court and therefore it is not......

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