McDuffie v. State, 21436
| Citation | 276 S.C. 229,277 S.E.2d 595 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21436,21436 |
| Parties | Charles T. McDUFFIE, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Chief Atty. John L. Sweeny of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. William K. Moore, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant Charles T. McDuffie appeals from an order granting summary judgment to the State and dismissing his application for post conviction relief because he lacked standing. We reverse.
McDuffie was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature in South Carolina in 1966. It is uncontradicted that he served the sentence and has been unconditionally released. He is currently serving a prison sentence in North Carolina on an unrelated charge. McDuffie alleged in his application for relief that the 1966 South Carolina conviction is being used to adversely affect his current sentence in North Carolina, to wit, (1) enhance his sentence; (2) reduce prison privileges; and/or (3) reduce his possibility of parole.
McDuffie asserts the trial court erred in granting the State summary judgment and dismissing his application for post conviction relief because he lacked standing. We agree.
The trial court, relying on Finklea v. State, 273 S.C. 157, 255 S.E.2d 447 (1979), held McDuffie lacked standing under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, S.C.Code § 17-27-10 et seq. (1976), because he was not incarcerated at this time as a result of his 1966 South Carolina conviction. The trial court's reliance on Finklea is misplaced because McDuffie does not allege in his application that he is incarcerated because of his 1966 conviction. Rather, he asserts he still suffers from the results of it.
In United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512-513, 74 S.Ct. 247, 253, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954), the United States Supreme Court held:
(Footnotes omitted).
In United States v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329, 332 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1964), the court quoting from Morgan, supra, held:
"(T)he case is not considered moot merely because sentence has been completed, and the court has power to vacate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nall v. McCall
...the prior convictions because his current sentence was enhanced as a result of the prior convictions. Petitioner cites McDuffie v. State, 277 S.E.2d 595 (S.C. 1981) to support his argument. Petitioner's reliance on McDuffie is misplaced because that case concerns a PCR application arising u......
-
Jackson v. State
...conviction still persist." Jones v. State, 322 S.C. 101, 102, 470 S.E.2d 110, 110 (1996) (emphasis added); see also McDuffie v. State, 276 S.C. 229, 277 S.E.2d 595 (1981). Thus, an applicant, regardless of whether he served jail time, may bring a PCR action if he demonstrates he is prejudic......
-
Nall v. McCall, C.A. No.: 6:11-2771-JFA-KFM
...the prior convictions because his current sentence was enhanced as a result of the prior convictions. Petitioner cites McDuffie v. State, 277 S.E.2d 595 (S.C. 1981) to support his argument. Petitioner's reliance on McDuffie is misplaced because that case concerns a PCR application arising u......
-
McElrath v. State, 21447
...of incarceration or direct threat of incarceration, citing Finklea v. State, 273 S.C. 157, 255 S.E.2d 447 (1979). In McDuffie v. State, S.C., 277 S.E.2d 595 (1981), we held that where an applicant for post conviction relief alleges in his application that the results of his prior conviction......