State v. Quinn

• Decision Date: 06 May 2020
• Docket Number: Opinion No. 27966,Appellate Case No. 2018-000494
• Citation: 843 S.E.2d 355,430 S.C. 115
• Parties: The STATE, Appellant, v. Richard M. QUINN, Jr., Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

430 S.C. 115

843 S.E.2d 355

The STATE, Appellant,

v.Richard M. QUINN, Jr., Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000494

Opinion No. 27966

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard October 15, 2019

Filed May 6, 2020

First Circuit Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., and Assistant Solicitor William Baker Allen, Jr., both of Orangeburg, for Appellant.

Matthew Terry Richardson, of Wyche Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondent.

JUSTICE HEARN :

This appeal arises from special prosecutor David Pascoe's State House public corruption probe involving former South Carolina House Representative Rick Quinn, Jr., who pleaded guilty to a charge of statutory misconduct in office in February 2018. Following the plea hearing, the State grew concerned about the plea's validity because Quinn only admitted to a limited set of facts supporting the indictment. Believing the plea lacked a sufficient basis, the State moved to vacate the guilty plea, reconsider the sentence, and for the court's recusal. The State appeals the order denying those motions. We dismiss the State's appeal of the guilty plea and affirm the trial court's order as to the sentence and recusal issues.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Respondent Rick Quinn, Jr. is a former member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, representing constituents in Richland and Lexington counties from 1989-2004 and 2010-2017 and serving as House Majority Leader from 1999-2004. He owned and operated a mail business called Mail Marketing Strategies (MMS) in Columbia, while his father owned and operated a political consulting firm, Richard Quinn & Associates (RQ&A).

In 2014, Attorney General Alan Wilson designated First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe as special prosecutor to conduct a State grand jury investigation into alleged public corruption committed by current and former members of the South Carolina General Assembly.¹ The present case arose from a prior State grand jury investigation of former House Speaker Bobby Harrell, which resulted in six counts of misusing campaign funds, to which he pleaded guilty. During the course of the investigation into Speaker Harrell, SLED uncovered potentially criminal conduct by Representative Jimmy Merrill and Representative Rick Quinn, and a second grand jury investigation was initiated to investigate the conduct of these two individuals. The investigation focused on Quinn's practice of using his office as House Majority Leader and leader of the House Republican Caucus to direct mailing and political services to his family's businesses.

As a result of Pascoe's investigation, Quinn was charged in May 2017 with statutory misconduct in office in violation of section 8-1-80 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, and common law misconduct in office. In October 2017, he was also charged with criminal conspiracy in violation of section 16-17-410.

Quinn's father's business, First Impressions, Inc. d/b/a RQ&A, was also indicted for failing to register as a lobbyist under section 2-17-20. Thereafter, several things occurred which caused the State concern. In November 2017, the court severed Respondent's case from his father's, despite the State's motion to consolidate the two trials, which the defense opposed on several grounds.² In addition, the State believed a conference call occurred on December 12, 2017, between the court, the State, and counsel for Respondent and his father in which the court inquired as to whether the parties remembered granting permission to have ex parte communication on a prior occasion while in Beaufort. The court disputed that any ex parte communication took place other than when the court and the parties spoke in chambers before the guilty plea hearing.

At the plea hearing on December 13, 2017, Respondent entered a guilty plea pursuant to an agreement with the State that resolved charges against both him and his father. Specifically, the agreement provided that Respondent would plead guilty to statutory misconduct in office, while the two remaining indictments against him would be dismissed, and that First Impressions would plead guilty and pay restitution in the amount of $3,000.00. Also as part of the plea agreement, Respondent was permitted to enter a "limited allocution"³ and the State would make a much broader factual presentation before sentencing. In his limited allocution, Respondent agreed to the following:

Rick Quinn agrees that in 2015, while a member of the House of Representatives, he failed to report to House Ethics Committee the name of USC, which he knew was a lobbyist principal and which in the previous calendar year leased office space for less than $30,000 total from Capitol Investments II, LLC, a business with which Rick was associated as a compensated agent by receiving a benefit from Capitol Investments II by being relieved from the payments on the mortgage note on the property as a guarantor and also by helping negotiate the mortgage note.

Although the State was provided with Respondent's limited allocution in writing prior to the plea hearing, it lacked information regarding the basis of his statement—that he had received an economic benefit from USC which he failed to report as a lobbyist's principal. During the hearing, the State presented a PowerPoint detailing the Quinn family businesses and alleging that Quinn's misconduct in office consisted of several acts occurring between April 1, 2010 and April 15, 2017, for which the State charged him with one count of a "continuing offense." Specifically, the State claimed that through his family businesses, Respondent knowingly received an improper economic benefit by virtue of his positions as House Majority Leader and leader of the House Republican Caucus. In its presentation, the State explained Respondent failed to disclose over $4 million received from lobbyist's principals, such as SCANA, AT&T, Palmetto Health, and USC, and voted as sponsor on legislation concerning those companies. The State showed the court documents indicating Respondent held himself out as an RQ&A employee despite his denial that he was associated with his father's business. The State also claimed Respondent funneled money from the House Republican Caucus's operating account to his family's businesses while he was House Majority Leader.

Respondent entered a guilty plea pursuant to the plea agreement, and the court accepted the plea, finding a substantial factual basis existed and that Respondent's decision to plead guilty was reasonably and intelligently given. There was no objection to the plea by either party during the proceeding. At the end of the hearing, due to the lateness of the hour, the court decided to defer sentencing for two months.

While awaiting that hearing, both parties filed sentencing memoranda. Respondent asked the court for probation rather than a prison sentence, arguing his conduct did not warrant imprisonment when compared to the misconduct of other public officials. In contrast, the State, after reviewing the plea hearing transcript, raised issues for the first time regarding the plea's validity and requested the plea be cured prior to sentencing or that it be vacated entirely. The State's concern stemmed from its inability to locate any payments made by the University of South Carolina to Capitol Investments II, LLC, in 2015; accordingly, it believed that Respondent's limited allocution did not satisfy the elements of statutory misconduct in office under section 8-1-80, but rather constituted only an unintentional failure to file under section 8-13-1130. Therefore, the State specifically requested the court, prior to sentencing, to clarify whether Respondent intentionally failed to report to ensure the elements of statutory misconduct in office were satisfied and the plea was sufficient. The State also asked the court to consider the State's factual presentation in determining Respondent's sentence and to sentence Respondent to the maximum one-year imprisonment.⁴

On February 12, 2018, the trial court held a sentencing hearing for Respondent and First Impressions, Inc. In response to the State's request, the court conducted a second colloquy with Respondent in which it confirmed he was guilty of statutory misconduct in office for intentionally failing to report income from USC, a lobbyist's principal. In announcing the sentence, the court seemed to apply the presumption of innocence with regard to any other misconduct the State presented and to which Respondent did not admit in his limited allocution. The court then sentenced Respondent to the maximum possible punishment for statutory misconduct in office—one-year imprisonment suspended to two years' probation and a $1,000.00 fine—as well as an additional 500 hours of public service. Both before and after sentencing, the State attempted to object to the plea, but the court indicated appeal was the State's only avenue of relief. At the end of the hearing, the State requested the court to recuse itself from the proceedings, which the court refused to do. Following the sentencing hearing, the court reporter published a comment on The State newspaper's website through Facebook, stating "[w]hen a solicitor passes up a golden opportunity to go to trial, but won't take responsibility for agreeing to a plea = classic cop out. Don't blame it on the judge."⁵

Thereafter, the State filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, or in the alternative, vacate the plea, and again requested the court to consider its factual presentation in sentencing Respondent. The court denied the motion, finding a substantial basis existed to accept the plea, reaffirming its consideration of the State's facts in sentencing, and refusing to recuse itself. The State appealed the court's denial of its motion to reconsider to the court of appeals. Respondent moved to dismiss the State's appeal, which the court of appeals denied, permitting the parties to fully brief the appealability issue along with the merits. Respondent requested this Court to...