Reese v. State, Appellate Case No. 2017-001110
Decision Date | 18 October 2018 |
Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2017-001110 |
Citation | 820 S.E.2d 376 (Mem),425 S.C. 108 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Robin Gray REESE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
This matter is before the Court by way of a notice of appeal from an order denying Petitioner Robin Gray Reese's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). At the conclusion of the trial of this PCR case, the circuit court took the decision on the merits under advisement and directed both the State and Reese to prepare proposed orders. The circuit court eventually signed the order prepared by the State and denied all claims for relief. In preparing the order, however, the State did not address each of Reese's claims, and did not include specific findings of fact or conclusions of law on any of Reese's claims. Nevertheless, the circuit court signed the order. As the law requires when a PCR order does not contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, Reese's PCR counsel filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. See Marlar v. State , 375 S.C. 407, 410, 653 S.E.2d 266, 267 (2007) ( ). In the motion, PCR counsel explained the "Order of Dismissal does not contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding each of the claims presented at the evidentiary hearing, as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-80 (2014)." Nevertheless, the circuit court summarily denied the motion, stating only, "Applicant's Motion Pursuant to Rule 59(e) SCRCP to Amend is DENIED."
In her petition for a writ of certiorari, Reese requested a remand to the circuit court and asked this Court to require the circuit court to prepare an order that complies with section 17-27-80 and Rule 52(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather than filing a return to Reese's petition, the State filed a motion to remand the case for detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, conceding a remand would be appropriate in light of the PCR order's patent inadequacies. We grant the State's motion.
310 S.C. at 255-56, 423 S.E.2d at 128 ; see also Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174, 195, 810 S.E.2d 836, 847 (2018) ( ); Ramirez v. State , 419 S.C. 14, 21 n.6, 795 S.E.2d 841, 845 n.6 (2017) ( ); Simmons v. State , 416 S.C. 584, 592, 788 S.E.2d 220, 225 (2016) ; Tappeiner v. State , 416 S.C. 239, 249 n.5, 785 S.E.2d 471, 476 n.5 (2016) ( ); Marlar , 375 S.C. at 408, 653 S.E.2d at 266 ( ); Marlar , 375 S.C. at 410, 653 S.E.2d at 267 ( ); Hall v. Catoe , 360 S.C. 353, 364-65, 601 S.E.2d 335, 341 (2004) ( ); Bryson v. State , 328 S.C. 236, 236-37, 493 S.E.2d 500, 500 (1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fishburne v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-002385
...the PCR court erred by signing an inadequate PCR order and by denying the applicant's Rule 59(e) motion. See Reese v. State , 425 S.C. 108, 111, 820 S.E.2d 376, 378 (2018). Citing numerous cases, we noted, "This is not the first time this Court has raised concerns over orders ... that do no......