Schneider v. State

Decision Date07 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 19199,19199
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesOscar E. SCHNEIDER, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, and William D. Leeke, Director, Department ofCorrections, Respondents.

Edward A. Harter, Jr., and Frank Register, Jr., John W. Williams, Jr., Columbia, Guardian ad Litem, for appellant.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., and Emmet H. Clair and John P. Wilson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

The most unfortunate plight of this appellant again claims the attention of this court. A brief summary of the history of the case is contained in the opinion of this court in Schneider v. State, 250 S.C. 298, 157 S.E.2d 593.

The present appeal is from an order of the Common Pleas Court of Richland County denying relief, after a full hearing, in a habeas corpus proceeding. Appellant's present petition sought his absolute release on the sole assertion that he has not been afforded due process and is being denied equal protection of the laws in violation of both State and Federal Constitutions, in that Code Sec. 32--970 contains no specific provision for review of a decision of the State Hospital as to his sanity or insanity, and no specific provision for a jury trial on that issue, whereas persons committed by the Probate Court are, on appeal, entitled to a jury trial de novo.

In our view, the record contains neither allegation nor proof of any fact which would warrant us considering and deciding appellant's claim that the particular Code section is unconstitutional. It is well settled that the constitutionality of a statute may not be questioned by one whose rights are not invaded and injuriously affected thereby. See cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Constitutional Law, k42.

'The constitutionality of a statute is to be considered in the light of the standing of the party who seeks to raise the question and of its particular application; and a person may challenge the constitutionality of a statute only when and as far as it is being, or is about to be, applied to his disadvantage.' 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 76, p. 226.

The appellant has neither alleged nor sought to prove his sanity either at the time of his commitment or at the time of the hearing below. He has not even sought a hearing as to his sanity by a judge, jury or otherwise. He has not alleged nor sought to prove that he is mentally competent to stand trial on the various criminal charges, or that he is capable in the slightest degree of assisting in his own defense. He did not seek a trial on any of the criminal charges and asked only for his absolute release.

He was represented at the hearing by a duly appointed guardian ad litem and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Town of Mount Pleasant v. Chimento
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 10, 2013
    ...in light of the standing of the party who seeks to raise the question and of its particular application....” Schneider v. State, 255 S.C. 594, 596, 180 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1971) (internal citation omitted). Standing is not a separate issue when the constitutionality of a statute is challenged ......
  • State v. Barroso
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 10, 1995
    ...is no evidence Matthews is one of those persons who, due to evolution and biology, is predisposed to drug usage. See Schneider v. State, 255 S.C. 594, 180 S.E.2d 340 (1971) (the constitutionality of a statute may not be questioned by one whose rights are not invaded and injuriously affected......
  • State v. Conyers
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1996
    ...of a statute may not be questioned by one whose rights are not invaded and injuriously affected thereby. Schneider v. State, 255 S.C. 594, 180 S.E.2d 340 (1971); see also Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990) (one must establish standing to assert an Eig......
  • Senn v. J. S. Weeks & Co., 19198
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1971
  • 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