Peloquin v. State, 24410
| Decision Date | 15 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 24410,24410 |
| Citation | 469 S.E.2d 606,321 S.C. 468 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Albert PELOQUIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Petitioner pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, trafficking in marijuana and trafficking in cocaine and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. No direct appeal was taken. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari to review the order of the post-conviction relief (PCR) judge granting the State's motion to summarily dismiss his application. We grant the writ, dispense with further briefing, reverse the order of the PCR judge and remand this matter.
Petitioner pled guilty on September 29, 1993, and filed his application for PCR on July 10, 1995. On July 1, 1995, S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-45 (Supp.1995), which creates the first statute of limitations for post-conviction relief, actions became effective. Section 17-27-45(A) states:
An application for relief filed pursuant to this chapter must be filed within one year after the entry of a judgment of conviction or within one year after the sending of the remittitur to the lower court from an appeal or the filing of the final decision upon an appeal, whichever is later.
The PCR judge dismissed petitioner's application on the ground that the application was filed more than a year after his convictions were final and therefore well after the statute of limitations had expired. Petitioner argues that this finding was in error and that he is entitled to a one year period after the effective date of the statute in which to file an application. We agree.
The legislature may reduce the period in which actions may be brought and may make such reduction applicable to existing causes of action; however, no new limitation shall be made to affect existing claims without allowing a reasonable time for parties to bring actions before their claims are absolutely barred by a new enactment. Gillespie v. Pickens County, 197 S.C. 217, 14 S.E.2d 900 (1941); Stoddard v. Owings, 42 S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettinato v. Eagleton, C.A. No. 2:05-1226 PMD RSC.
...— in other words, Pettinato had until July 1, 1996 within which to file a timely PCR application. See Peloquin v. State, 321 S.C. 468, 470, 469 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1996) ("[A]ll those convicted prior to the effective date of [S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-45(a) ] should be allowed one year after its e......
-
Talley v. State
...to the lower court from an appeal or the filing of the final decision upon an appeal, whichever is later. In Peloquin v. State, 321 S.C. 468, 469 S.E.2d 606 (1996), the Court held that all defendants convicted prior to July 1, 1995, the effective date of 17-27-45, must be allowed until July......
-
Sanders v. Warden of Allendale Corr. Inst.
...Carolina has held that the statute of limitations shall apply to all applications filed after July 1, 1996. Peloquin v. State, 469 S.E.2d 606, 607 (S.C. 1996) (per curiam). Additionally, the Fourth Circuit has established that "defendants have a full and fair opportunity to present claims i......
-
Robinson v. State Of South Carolina, 26817.
...nor the quality of assistance rendered by plea counsel as the statute of limitations applies to that conviction. Peloquin v. State, 321 S.C. 468, 469 S.E.2d 606 (1996) (one year to file application). I would decide the case on this ground, and dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently......