McClary v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFINNEY
Citation337 S.E.2d 218,287 S.C. 160
PartiesMarion Joey McCLARY, Petitioner, v. The STATE, Respondent.
Decision Date19 November 1985

Page 218

337 S.E.2d 218
287 S.C. 160
Marion Joey McCLARY, Petitioner,
v.
The STATE, Respondent.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 19, 1985.
[287 S.C. 161] ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari after the denial of McClary's petition for post-conviction relief. The petition is denied.

We take this opportunity to clarify our holding in State v. Woods, 282 S.C. 18, 316 S.E.2d 673 (1984). In Woods, we held that our decision in State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d 781 (1983), would be applied retroactively. Adopting the reasoning of Shea v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1065, 84 L.Ed.2d 38 (1985), we now hold that Elmore 's retroactive effect will be limited to cases pending on direct appeal and will not apply to collateral attacks on criminal convictions.

FINNEY, J., not participating.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Yates v. Aiken, No. 22614
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 26, 1986
    ...on direct appeal at the time that case was decided and will not apply to collateral attacks on criminal convictions. McClary v. State, 287 S.C. 160, 337 S.E.2d 218 (1985). In light of the remand of this case, however, we take this opportunity to re-evaluate and expand on our holding in McCl......
  • Yates v. Aiken, No. 22962
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 6, 1989
    ...limited to cases pending on direct appeal at the time Elmore was decided and does not apply to collateral attacks. See McClary v. State, 287 S.C. 160, 337 S.E.2d 218 3 We note that under this analysis petitioner would not be eligible in federal habeas corpus proceedings to raise the mandato......
  • Lyles v. Quantum Chemical Co. (Emery), No. 2051
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 19, 1993
    ...presumes a claimant has lost earning capacity to a degree which corresponds to the claimant's degree of impairment. See Bateman, 287 S.C. at 160, 336 S.E.2d at 89; McCollum v. Singer Co., 300 S.C. 103, 107-08, 386 S.E.2d 471, 474 (Ct.App.1989). In Fields v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, 301 S.C.......
  • Truesdale v. Aiken
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 9, 1986
    ...470 U.S. 51, 105 S.Ct. 1065, 84 L.Ed.2d 38 (1985); Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 104 S.Ct. 1338, 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); McClary v. State, 287 S.C. 160, 337 S.E.2d 218 (1985). The petition for rehearing is therefore IT IS SO ORDERED. ...
4 cases
  • Yates v. Aiken, No. 22614
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 26, 1986
    ...on direct appeal at the time that case was decided and will not apply to collateral attacks on criminal convictions. McClary v. State, 287 S.C. 160, 337 S.E.2d 218 (1985). In light of the remand of this case, however, we take this opportunity to re-evaluate and expand on our holding in McCl......
  • Yates v. Aiken, No. 22962
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 6, 1989
    ...limited to cases pending on direct appeal at the time Elmore was decided and does not apply to collateral attacks. See McClary v. State, 287 S.C. 160, 337 S.E.2d 218 3 We note that under this analysis petitioner would not be eligible in federal habeas corpus proceedings to raise the mandato......
  • Lyles v. Quantum Chemical Co. (Emery), No. 2051
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 19, 1993
    ...presumes a claimant has lost earning capacity to a degree which corresponds to the claimant's degree of impairment. See Bateman, 287 S.C. at 160, 336 S.E.2d at 89; McCollum v. Singer Co., 300 S.C. 103, 107-08, 386 S.E.2d 471, 474 (Ct.App.1989). In Fields v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, 301 S.C.......
  • Truesdale v. Aiken
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 9, 1986
    ...470 U.S. 51, 105 S.Ct. 1065, 84 L.Ed.2d 38 (1985); Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 104 S.Ct. 1338, 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); McClary v. State, 287 S.C. 160, 337 S.E.2d 218 (1985). The petition for rehearing is therefore IT IS SO ORDERED. ...

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