Sutton v. State, No. 25910.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 606 S.E.2d 779,361 S.C. 644 |
| Docket Number | No. 25910. |
| Decision Date | 13 December 2004 |
| Parties | Johnny Wayne SUTTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
361 S.C. 644
606 S.E.2d 779
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent
No. 25910.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted October 20, 2004.
Decided December 13, 2004.
Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
Justice BURNETT:
The circuit court dismissed Johnny W. Sutton's (Petitioner) post-conviction relief (PCR) application as barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner was convicted in 1991 of murder and was sentenced to life in prison. We affirmed. State v. Sutton, Op. No. 93-MO-197 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed July 19, 1993) (unpublished decision).
Petitioner filed his first PCR application on May 8, 2001, and later amended it. He alleged the one-year statute of limitations should not bar his application because his trial and appellate attorneys failed to inform him of his right to seek collateral review of his conviction on grounds not available in a direct appeal.
The PCR judge dismissed Petitioner's application as untimely without an evidentiary hearing because it was filed nearly five years after July 1, 1996 — the deadline to file an application for all persons convicted before the effective date of the statute of limitations contained in S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-45(A) (2003). See Peloquin v. State, 321 S.C. 468, 469 S.E.2d 606 (1996).
We granted Petitioner's writ of certiorari to address a novel issue:
Did the circuit court err in summarily dismissing Petitioner's PCR application as untimely, where Petitioner alleged he did not file a timely application because neither his trial nor his appellate attorneys informed him of the statutory right to file an application?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Dismissal of a PCR application without a hearing is appropriate only when (1) it is apparent on the face of the application that there is no need for a hearing to develop any facts and (2) the applicant is not entitled to relief. S.C.Code Ann.
In a case raising a novel issue of law, the appellate court is free to decide the question of law with no particular deference to the trial court. Osprey, Inc. v. Cabana Ltd. Partnership, 340 S.C. 367, 372, 532 S.E.2d 269, 272 (2000); I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 411, 526 S.E.2d 716, 718 (2000). We will reverse the PCR judge's decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinojos v. Bush, Civil Action No.:2:14-2960-DCN-MGB
...Evidence" in his 2011 PCR action on October 31, 2014. (See Dkt. No. 16-50.) 3. Petitioner also complains that the case of Sutton v. State, 361 S.C. 644, 606 S.E.2d 779 (2004), which was relied on by the PCR court, is no longer good law because it was abrogated by Bray v. State, 366 S.C. 137......
-
Hiott v. State, No. 4302.
...363 S.C. 432, 434, 611 S.E.2d 494, 495 (2005) (holding PCR actions are governed by the usual rules of civil procedure); Sutton v. State, 361 S.C. 644, 647, 606 S.E.2d 779, 780 (2004) ("A PCR action is a civil action generally subject to rules and statutes that apply in civil proceedings.") ......
-
Bray v. State, No. 26045.
...never specifically required counsel to advise a PCR applicant of the right to appellate review of the denial of PCR. In Sutton v. State, 361 S.C. 644, 606 S.E.2d 779 (2004), we held that neither trial nor appellate counsel are required to advise a client of the right to file a PCR applicati......
-
Hinojos v. Bush, Civil Action No.:2:14-2960-DCN-MGB
...Evidence" in his 2011 PCR action on October 31, 2014. (See Dkt. No. 16-50.) 3. Petitioner also complains that the case of Sutton v. State, 361 S.C. 644, 606 S.E.2d 779 (2004), which was relied on by the PCR court, is no longer good law because it was abrogated by Bray v. State, 366 S.C. 137......
-
Hiott v. State, 4302.
...363 S.C. 432, 434, 611 S.E.2d 494, 495 (2005) (holding PCR actions are governed by the usual rules of civil procedure); Sutton v. State, 361 S.C. 644, 647, 606 S.E.2d 779, 780 (2004) ("A PCR action is a civil action generally subject to rules and statutes that apply in civil proceedings.") ......
-
Bray v. State, 26045.
...never specifically required counsel to advise a PCR applicant of the right to appellate review of the denial of PCR. In Sutton v. State, 361 S.C. 644, 606 S.E.2d 779 (2004), we held that neither trial nor appellate counsel are required to advise a client of the right to file a PCR applicati......