Pruitt v. State, No. 23724

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation310 S.C. 254,423 S.E.2d 127
PartiesDarrell PRUITT, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decision Date05 October 1992
Docket NumberNo. 23724

Page 127

423 S.E.2d 127
310 S.C. 254
Darrell PRUITT, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 23724.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted July 30, 1992.
Decided Oct. 5, 1992.

Asst. Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald[310 S.C. 255] J. Zelenka, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Teresa N. Cosby, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the Court by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari from an order of Judge Patterson finding that petitioner was entitled to review under Austin v. State 1 of an order issued by Judge Brown denying, after a hearing, petitioner's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). The State does not contest the finding that petitioner is entitled to an Austin review. Accordingly, we grant certiorari, dispense with further briefing, and proceed with a review of the questions asserting error in Judge Brown's order.

Petitioner asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial judge's erroneous jury instruction on malice and for failing to object to a

Page 128

portion of the solicitor's argument. Additionally, he contends that he was denied his right to a direct appeal. Unfortunately, although these allegations were raised in petitioner's application for PCR and evidence was presented regarding them at the hearing on the application, Judge Brown's order denying relief does not address the questions. Accordingly, we find it necessary to vacate Judge Brown's order and remand this matter to the circuit court to hold a new hearing. Petitioner shall be entitled to file an amended application if necessary and the order shall address all issues properly raised at the hearing. McCray v. State, 305 S.C. 329, 408 S.E.2d 241 (1991); S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-80 (1991). 2

We take this opportunity to express our concern with the increasing number of orders in PCR proceedings that fail to address the merits of the issues raised by the applicant. Not only does this deprive the parties of rulings on the issues raised, but it makes review by the appellate [310 S.C. 256] court more difficult and ultimately increases the work load of all involved where, as in this case, a new hearing is required to secure the rulings which should have been made initially. Counsel preparing proposed orders should be meticulous in doing so, opposing counsel should call any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, No. 25503.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2002
    ...that deficiency must first be raised by a Rule 59 motion in the trial court in order to be preserved for appeal. E.g., Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992) (Rule 52); State v. City of Columbia, 12 S.C. 370 (1879) (former statutes). Here, the State raised no objection to the ......
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...must timely file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to preserve for review any issues not ruled upon by the court in its order. Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992) (issue must be raised to and ruled on by the PCR judge in order to be preserved for review); Plyler v. State, 309 S.C......
  • Bailey v. Bazzle, Civil Action No. 4:07-CV-03646-MBS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 30, 2008
    ...in situations when those issues were presented in the initial PCR application, but not ruled upon by the PCR judge. See Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992) (finding it necessary to vacate an order denying PCR petition when due process claim was raised and written order fail......
  • Thomas v. Eagleton, C.A. No. 2:09-1344-PMD.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 4, 2010
    ...Marlar v. State, 375 S.C. 407, 653 S.E.2d 266 (2007) (citing Humbert v. State, 345 S.C. 332, 548 S.E.2d 862 (2001); Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992)). Furthermore, it is clearly established precedent that failure on the part of PCR counsel to preserve grounds for appeal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, No. 25503.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2002
    ...that deficiency must first be raised by a Rule 59 motion in the trial court in order to be preserved for appeal. E.g., Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992) (Rule 52); State v. City of Columbia, 12 S.C. 370 (1879) (former statutes). Here, the State raised no objection to the ......
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...must timely file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to preserve for review any issues not ruled upon by the court in its order. Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992) (issue must be raised to and ruled on by the PCR judge in order to be preserved for review); Plyler v. State, 309 S.C......
  • Bailey v. Bazzle, Civil Action No. 4:07-CV-03646-MBS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 30, 2008
    ...in situations when those issues were presented in the initial PCR application, but not ruled upon by the PCR judge. See Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992) (finding it necessary to vacate an order denying PCR petition when due process claim was raised and written order fail......
  • Thomas v. Eagleton, C.A. No. 2:09-1344-PMD.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 4, 2010
    ...Marlar v. State, 375 S.C. 407, 653 S.E.2d 266 (2007) (citing Humbert v. State, 345 S.C. 332, 548 S.E.2d 862 (2001); Pruitt v. State, 310 S.C. 254, 423 S.E.2d 127 (1992)). Furthermore, it is clearly established precedent that failure on the part of PCR counsel to preserve grounds for appeal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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