State v. Looper
| Decision Date | 08 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 27746,Appellate Case No. 2015-001493 |
| Citation | 807 S.E.2d 203,421 S.C. 384 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Andrew T. LOOPER, Petitioner. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
J. Falkner Wilkes and Steve W. Sumner, both of Greenville, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
Petitioner Andrew T. Looper challenges the court of appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an interlocutory circuit court order. We affirm as modified, and in doing so clarify our rules regarding appealability.
Petitioner was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) after being pulled over by a Greenville County Sheriff's Deputy for speeding. At a pretrial hearing before a magistrate, Petitioner moved to suppress evidence of field sobriety tests and breath analysis, arguing they were the fruits of an unconstitutionally prolonged traffic stop. The magistrate granted Petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence and dismissed the DUI charge.
The State appealed to the circuit court.1 The circuit court held the magistrate erred in granting Petitioner's motion and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Thereafter, Petitioner appealed to the court of appeals, which analogized the circuit court's order to an interlocutory order denying a motion to suppress evidence. State v. Looper, 412 S.C. 363, 366, 772 S.E.2d 516, 517 (Ct. App. 2015). The court of appeals therefore dismissed the appeal, finding Petitioner was not "aggrieved" in a legal sense because he had not been convicted and sentenced. Id. at 365–66, 772 S.E.2d at 517.
We issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision.
Petitioner now argues the court of appeals erred by concluding that, because he had not been convicted below, he was not aggrieved and not entitled to appeal the circuit court's decision. We disagree, and we take this opportunity to clarify our appealability jurisprudence.
In South Carolina, the State may immediately appeal an interlocutory order "granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case." State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 168, 337 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1985) ; see S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (2017) (). In contrast, typically "a criminal defendant may not appeal ‘except from the final sentence imposed by the court.’ " State v. Gregorie, 339 S.C. 2, 3, 528 S.E.2d 77, 78 (2000) (quoting State v. Timmons, 68 S.C. 258, 259, 47 S.E. 140, 141 (1904) ); see also State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 426, 426, 346 S.E.2d 705, 705 (1986) ().
In Gregorie, we held that once an appeal has been taken to the circuit court and "that court renders its final judgment, the right to further appellate review is controlled by statute: Any aggrieved party may appeal the circuit court's final judgment." 339 S.C. at 4, 528 S.E.2d at 78 ; see S.C. Code Ann. § 18-1-30 (2014) (); id.§ 18-9-10 (2014) ().
" ‘[A]n aggrieved party is one who is injured in a legal sense or has suffered an injury to person or property.’ " State v. Rearick, 417 S.C. 391, 398 n.9, 790 S.E.2d 192, 196 n.9 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Cox, 328 S.C. 371, 373, 492 S.E.2d 399, 400 (Ct. App. 1997) ), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1582, 197 L.Ed.2d 712 (2017). "A final judgment disposes of the whole subject matter of the action or terminates the particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined." Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 387 S.C. 265, 267, 692 S.E.2d 894, 895 (2010).
Relying on Gregorie, Petitioner contends that once the appellate process was properly begun by the State, it could be continued by any party that received an adverse decision from the reviewing court. Therefore, because the circuit court ruled against him, Petitioner argues he was entitled to an immediate appeal.
While the result in Gregorie is correct, the language in the opinion can be parsed in a manner that is at odds with our well-established appealability rules. That language, which Petitioner understandably focuses on, suggests that the test for appealability is "whether the party bringing the appeal is aggrieved." Gregorie, 339 S.C. at 4, 528 S.E.2d at 78. We acknowledge that this language may be read to suggest that being aggrieved is the only requirement to appeal from a circuit court's order. However, understood in context, we do not view Gregorie as a departure from the general requirements for appealability: being aggrieved by a final judgment.
This is so because Gregorie had been convicted and sentenced, and under the facts and procedural posture of that case, any retrial was barred by double jeopardy as a matter of law, rendering the order of the circuit court effectively a final judgment by which Gregorie was unquestionably aggrieved. See id. at 3–4, 528 S.E.2d at 78. Thus, the twin pillars of appealability, aggrieved and a final judgment, were present.
Here, in contrast, as the court of appeals noted, Petitioner has not been convicted and sentenced. See Looper, 412 S.C. at 365, 772 S.E.2d at 517. We, of course, take no exception to the notion that Petitioner was adversely impacted by the circuit court's order remanding the case for trial, but he was not aggrieved in a legal sense. Cf. Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp., 303 S.C. 469, 470, 402 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1991) (). Moreover, because the circuit court's order did not purport to determine Petitioner's guilt or impose any sentence on him, it was not a final judgment. Cf. State v. Isaac, 405 S.C. 177, 182–83, 187, 747 S.E.2d 677, 679–80, 682 (2013) ().
Relying on selected language in Gregorie, Petitioner additionally advances section 18-1-30 of the South Carolina Code as a standalone basis in support of his purported right to appeal the circuit court's order.2 Section 18-1-30 provides, "Any party aggrieved may appeal in the cases prescribed in this title." S.C. Code Ann. § 18-1-30. However, this statute cannot be construed in isolation to permit an appeal as a matter of right on the sole basis of being aggrieved. Indeed, this is self-evident from the statute's reference to "the cases prescribed in this title." Id. Elsewhere in title 18, section 18-1- 10 expressly references "the mode [of reviewing a judgment or order] prescribed for particular matters in Titles 14, 15, and 17 [of the South Carolina Code]." Id.§ 18-1-10 (2014). And section 18-9-10 specifically refers to appeals brought pursuant to section 14-3-330. Id.§ 18-9-10. Naturally, then, courts frequently turn to section 14-3-330 in analyzing whether an interlocutory order may be appealed.3 See, e.g., Brown v. County of Berkeley, 366 S.C. 354, 361–62, 622 S.E.2d 533, 537–38 (2005) ().
Whether based on statute or case law, the overarching point remains—absent the presence of an exception to the final judgment rule, appealability is determined by a final judgment and an aggrieved party. See also Rule 201, SCACR ( ). As noted, in the criminal context, a judgment is final when sentence is imposed. See, e.g., Gregorie, 339 S.C. at 4, 528 S.E.2d at 78. As Petitioner has not been convicted and sentenced, there has been no final judgment, and as no exception to the requirement of a final judgment is applicable under the facts of this case, Petitioner's appeal is premature and must be dismissed.
To the extent Gregorie may be read to imply that any party aggrieved by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reece
...of section 14-3-330 have consistently held that a defendant may appeal only after sentence has been imposed."); State v. Looper, ___ S.C. ___, ___, 807 S.E.2d 203, 206 (2017) (holding because appellant "ha[d] not been convicted and sentenced, there ha[d] been no final judgment, and [because......
- Bennett v. Carter
-
State v. Reece
... ... 391, 400, 790 S.E.2d 192, 196 (2016) ... ("Significantly, appellate court decisions that pre-date ... and post-date the enactment of section 14-3-330 have ... consistently held that a defendant may appeal only after ... sentence has been imposed."); State v. Looper, ... ___ S.C. ___, ___, 807 S.E.2d 203, 206 (2017) (holding ... because appellant "ha[d] not been convicted and ... sentenced, there ha[d] been no final judgment, and [because] ... no exception to the requirement of a final judgment ... appli[ed] under the facts ... ...