Mose v. State

• Decision Date: 16 August 2017
• Docket Number: Opinion No. 27732.
• Citation: 420 S.C. 500,803 S.E.2d 718
• Parties: Renwick D. MOSE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

420 S.C. 500

803 S.E.2d 718

Renwick D. MOSE, Petitioner,

v.STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

Opinion No. 27732.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted February 9, 2017

Filed August 16, 2017

Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Amanda Coleman, of Columbia, for Respondent.

CHIEF JUSTICE BEATTY :

We granted certiorari to review the dismissal of Renwick Mose's application for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR). Mose contends that, although the Clerk of Court formally stamped his application as "filed" three days after the statute of limitations period ended, he complied with the one-year statute of limitations because he delivered his application to prison authorities for mailing within one year of the date of his conviction.¹ Mose now seeks reversal of the PCR judge's ruling so that he may receive a PCR hearing on the merits of his application. We reverse and remand.

I. Factual / Procedural History

On March 7, 2013, Mose pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of burglary in the second degree and as indicted for assault and battery in the first degree, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). The plea judge sentenced Mose to twelve years' imprisonment for burglary and ten years' imprisonment for assault and battery, to be served concurrently. Mose did not appeal his guilty plea or sentences.

In a PCR application, dated February 18, 2014, Mose alleged that he was denied due process, effective assistance of counsel, and his right to a speedy trial. The Verification and Application to Proceed Without Payment of Costs both indicate they were sworn to and subscribed before a notary public on February 18, 2014. However, Mose's PCR application was stamped "filed" by the Williamsburg County Clerk of Court on March 10, 2014.

The State filed a Return and moved to dismiss Mose's PCR application, arguing that the application was barred by the one-year statute of limitations as provided by section 17-27-45(A) of the South Carolina Code (2014). By order dated October 1, 2014, the PCR judge issued a Conditional Order of Dismissal, which allowed Mose twenty days to submit factual or legal reasons why his application should not be dismissed.

Mose filed a response in which he maintained he placed the PCR application in the prison mailbox on February 18, 2014, the day the PCR application was notarized. Mose asserted the application was deemed "filed" at the time it was mailed pursuant to the "prison mailbox rule" as enunciated in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Mose also attached an affidavit in which he stated an associate warden at the prison investigated the date Mose submitted his PCR application and discovered the application was mailed on February 18, 2014, and the envelope used to mail the application contained the same date.²

By order dated February 5, 2015, the PCR judge summarily dismissed Mose's PCR application, finding Mose filed it outside of the one-year statute of limitations.

II. Standard of Review

In PCR actions, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Butler v. State , 286 S.C. 441, 334 S.E.2d 813 (1985). "This Court gives great deference to the factual findings of the PCR court and will uphold them if there is any evidence of probative value to support them." Sellner v. State , 416 S.C. 606, 610, 787 S.E.2d 525, 527 (2016). "Questions of law are reviewed de novo , and we will reverse the PCR court's decision when it is controlled by an error of law." Id.

"Summary dismissal of a PCR application without a hearing is appropriate only when (1) it is apparent on the face of the application that there is no need for a hearing to develop any facts and (2) the applicant is not entitled to relief." Leamon v. State , 363 S.C. 432, 434, 611 S.E.2d 494, 495 (2005) ; S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-70(b), (c) (2014). When considering the State's motion for summary dismissal of an application, where no evidentiary hearing has been held, the PCR judge must assume facts presented by the applicant are true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the applicant. Leamon , 363 S.C. at 434, 611 S.E.2d at 495. When reviewing the propriety of a dismissal, an appellate court must view the facts in the same fashion. Id.

III. Discussion

A. Arguments

In challenging the PCR judge's order, Mose contends the judge erred in finding Mose's PCR application was filed outside of the one-year statute of limitations. Mose maintains he complied with the statute of limitations when he signed, notarized, and placed his PCR application in the prison mail room on February 18, 2014, seventeen days prior to the filing deadline. Mose argues that regardless of the calculations, he "clearly made a good faith effort to meet the deadline." Furthermore, Mose asserts three days is a minimal time lapse when viewed in light of the overall intent of the PCR statutory scheme. In sum, Mose contends the dismissal of his PCR action based on filing three days late was unfair, unreasonable, and in violation of the spirit of the PCR statutory boundaries regarding filing deadlines.

Alternatively, Mose maintains he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because he placed his application in the mail seventeen days prior to the deadline but "due to no fault of his own, his PCR application did not leave the [South Carolina Department of Corrections] mailroom in time to reach the [Clerk of Court]" before the one-year deadline passed. Consequently, Mose asserts that because of "the totality of the circumstances surrounding [Mose's] pursuit of his PCR action, a sense of fundamental fairness would require that [Mose] be afforded the benefit of his PCR action filed in his case."

In response, the State argues that, similar to Pelzer v. State , 378 S.C. 516, 662 S.E.2d 618 (Ct. App. 2008),³ the PCR judge properly dismissed Mose's PCR application as untimely. The State maintains that Mose "has offered no proof that the application was placed in the mailroom on [February 18, 2014] or when it was postmarked or stamped."⁴ According to the State, the only date that is certain is the date the application was filed with the Clerk of Court, March 10, 2014. Furthermore, the State contends Mose has not alleged any wrongdoing by the State, or the Clerk of Court, and has failed to show any circumstances extraordinary enough to warrant equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. Finally, the State asserts Mose has failed to show any basis on which a deviation from the statute should be allowed.

B. Untimely Filing Determination

This Court has held that mailing does not constitute filing of a PCR application for statute of limitations purposes. Gary v. State , 347 S.C. 627, 629, 557 S.E.2d 662, 663 (2001). Rather, the application is deemed "filed" when it is delivered to and received by the Clerk of Court. Id .

In Gary , the petitioner pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment on October 25, 1995. Id. at 628, 557 S.E.2d at 663. No direct appeal was taken. Id . On November 5, 1996, the petitioner filed a PCR application asserting that he was indigent and alleging trial counsel was ineffective in advising him to plead guilty. Id. In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss on the ground the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided in section 17-27-45(A). Id. At the hearing, the petitioner, who appeared pro se , explained to the PCR judge that he mailed his application within the one-year statute of limitations, but claimed he mistakenly addressed it to "the wrong place" and "by the time it came back, it was too late." Id . at 629, 557 S.E.2d at 663. No other evidence was introduced. Id . The PCR judge summarily dismissed the application as untimely. Id .

On appeal, this Court determined that mailing of the application was not sufficient under section 17-27-45(A), and declined to address the petitioner's unpreserved argument that "equitable tolling" of the statute of limitations should have been allowed. Id. The Court, however, "express[ed] no opinion on the validity of [the equitable tolling] defense to the statute of limitations." Gary , 347 S.C. at 629 n.2, 557 S.E.2d at 663 n.2. Ultimately, the Court found the petitioner's hearing inadequate and remanded the case for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's claim of equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. Id . at 629-30, 557 S.E.2d at 663-64.

Although Gary created the bright-line rule that mailing does not equate to filing, our decision did not foreclose the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling in the context of PCR. Since Gary , our appellate courts have permitted equitable tolling in some cases. Notably, this Court has determined the statute of limitations shall be equitably tolled where " ‘circumstances preventing a petitioner from making a timely filing [are] both beyond the petitioner's control and unavoidable despite due diligence.’ " Ferguson v. State , 382 S.C. 615, 618, 677 S.E.2d 600, 602 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Carneal , 274 S.W.3d 420, 429 (Ky. 2008) ) (holding that PCR applicant's failure to timely file due to mental incompetency warranted equitable tolling of the statute of limitations); cf. Pelzer , 378 S.C. at 522, 662 S.E.2d at 621 (determining equitable tolling was not warranted where inmate missed filing deadline due to mailing application to wrong venue).

Now, we must determine whether the statute of limitations should be tolled where the filing of a PCR application is delayed due to the processing of documents by prison authorities. As will be discussed, we are persuaded by the rationale behind the "Prison Mailbox Rule" and, therefore, hold that equitable tolling may be applied in this context if the defense is properly raised and the...