Simpson v. State, No. 24738

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation495 S.E.2d 429,329 S.C. 43
PartiesJack SIMPSON, # 168120, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Attorney General, Warden Ricky Harrison, Respondents. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 24738
Decision Date22 January 1997

Page 429

495 S.E.2d 429
329 S.C. 43
Jack SIMPSON, # 168120, Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Attorney General, Warden Ricky
Harrison, Respondents.
No. 24738.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Jan. 22, 1997.
Decided Jan. 12, 1998.

[329 S.C. 44] Assistant Appellate Defender Lisa T. Gregory of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, and Assistant Attorney General Barbara M. Tiffin, Columbia, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Jack Simpson pled guilty to second degree arson and entered guilty but mentally ill pleas, pursuant to North Carolina

Page 430

v. Alford, 1 to first degree burglary, assault with intent to kill, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Appellant did not appeal his pleas.

Thereafter, appellant filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR). The PCR judge granted the application and vacated appellant's burglary conviction. The State appealed, and this Court reversed. Simpson v. State, 317 S.C. 506, 455 S.E.2d 175 (1995).

Appellant next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court's original jurisdiction which was dismissed pursuant to Key v. Currie. 2 Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. The circuit court judge granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an action under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Appellant asserts the ruling of the circuit judge was erroneous. We disagree.

At common law, the writ of habeas corpus was available after conviction only to attack the jurisdiction of the court that had imposed sentence. The rule was stated as follows:

It is fundamental that habeas corpus is a collateral remedy, subject to the limitations common to collateral proceedings, and calls in question only the jurisdiction of the court whose [329 S.C. 45] judgment is challenged. It is only when a judgment of conviction or sentence imposed is void, and not merely voidable, that relief may be had by habeas corpus.... And the jurisdiction of a court to render a particular judgment or impose a particular sentence may be a proper subject of inquiry on habeas corpus. Where, for example, it appears upon the face of the record that a court having jurisdiction both of the person and of the subject-matter has imposed an excessive sentence, that is, one by which a greater punishment is inflicted than the maximum allowed by law, and where it further appears that the prisoner, at the time of his application for habeas corpus, has served out the maximum term of imprisonment to which the court had power to sentence him, according to the prevailing rule and the better doctrine, so much of such sentence as is excessive will be declared void, and the prisoner discharged on habeas corpus.

Ex Parte Klugh, 132 S.C. 199, 128 S.E....

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...or sentence into the PCR process. We briefly traced the history of habeas corpus and the advent of the PCR Act in Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 495 S.E.2d 429 (1998). We held that a matter which is cognizable under the PCR Act must be raised in PCR application, and may not be raised by a p......
  • State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...armed with a deadly weapon. Joseph v. State, 351 S.C. 551, 571 S.E.2d 280 (2002). 10. Abrogated on other grounds by Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 495 S.E.2d 429 11. A claim of double jeopardy is ordinarily judged by comparing the allegations made in the second indictment with those made in......
  • In re Chapman, Appellate Case No. 2014-001181
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 15, 2017
    ...Following such review, a criminal defendant may file a petition for habeas corpus as a means of seeking final relief. Simpson v. State , 329 S.C. 43, 46, 495 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1998) (per curiam). However, petitions for habeas relief serve only to ensure observance of fundamental constitution......
  • Wilson v. Moore, No. CIV.A. 2:97-1040-20AJ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 27, 1998
    ...of significant public interest or an emergency." Key v. Currie, 305 S.C. 115, 406 S.E.2d 356, 356 (1991); see also Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 495 S.E.2d 429 (1998) (forthcoming published 6. The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and altered the disposition of federal habeas corpus case......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...or sentence into the PCR process. We briefly traced the history of habeas corpus and the advent of the PCR Act in Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 495 S.E.2d 429 (1998). We held that a matter which is cognizable under the PCR Act must be raised in PCR application, and may not be raised by a p......
  • State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...armed with a deadly weapon. Joseph v. State, 351 S.C. 551, 571 S.E.2d 280 (2002). 10. Abrogated on other grounds by Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 495 S.E.2d 429 11. A claim of double jeopardy is ordinarily judged by comparing the allegations made in the second indictment with those made in......
  • In re Chapman, Appellate Case No. 2014-001181
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 15, 2017
    ...Following such review, a criminal defendant may file a petition for habeas corpus as a means of seeking final relief. Simpson v. State , 329 S.C. 43, 46, 495 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1998) (per curiam). However, petitions for habeas relief serve only to ensure observance of fundamental constitution......
  • Wilson v. Moore, No. CIV.A. 2:97-1040-20AJ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 27, 1998
    ...of significant public interest or an emergency." Key v. Currie, 305 S.C. 115, 406 S.E.2d 356, 356 (1991); see also Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 495 S.E.2d 429 (1998) (forthcoming published 6. The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and altered the disposition of federal habeas corpus case......
  • 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