Tutt v. State, No. 21686

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation290 S.E.2d 414,277 S.C. 525
PartiesSamuel TUTT, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 21686
Decision Date06 April 1982

Page 414

290 S.E.2d 414
277 S.C. 525
Samuel TUTT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 21686.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
April 6, 1982.

Appellate Defender John L. Sweeny and Asst. Appellate Defender Kathy D. Lindsay, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. William K. Moore, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years' imprisonment for armed robbery, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and receiving stolen goods. He is appealing the denial of post-conviction relief after a hearing.

[277 S.C. 526] While serving his sentence, appellant was charged with violations of the prison's institutional

Page 415

rules. After a hearing the prison Adjustment Committee transferred appellant to the Maximum Security Center and decreased his time credited for good behavior.

Appellant's application for post-conviction relief contained several allegations, but only one is under consideration in this appeal. He alleged cruel and unusual punishment in his being assigned to the Maximum Security Center, placed in solitary confinement, and denied medical treatment. He sought release from the Center, restoration of good-time lost, and expungement of the violations from his record.

After a hearing the lower court denied post-conviction relief based on several findings. The court dismissed appellant's allegation of cruel and unusual punishment on the ground that an application for post-conviction relief did not give the court jurisdiction to consider questions pertaining to prison living conditions. Appellant argues that the court erred in this ruling. We disagree and affirm the lower court's finding.

The provisions of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act may be invoked only by someone who is claiming the right to have a sentence vacated, set aside or corrected. Rule 1, Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Appellant's claim does not pertain to his sentence; therefore, it could not be considered under the Act. Id. In addition, this Court has held that under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act a court does not have authority to consider an allegation that an inmate's constitutional rights were violated when the prison authorities transferred him within the prison system and downgraded his custody status. Crowe v. Leeke, 273 S.C. 763, 259 S.E.2d 614 (1979).

In Crowe this Court reviewed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...counsel to assist him in preparing his PCR case. The State asked the PCR judge to dismiss the application pursuant to Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414 (1982) (PCR Act may be invoked only by someone claiming right to have sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected; the Act does not......
  • Wade v. State, No. 25409.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 11, 2002
    ...exception since the purpose of a PCR is to challenge a conviction not living conditions. See Al—Shabazz v. State, supra; Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414 (1982). The placement of the exception suggests the Legislature intended the ILA to apply to non-PCR inmate Further, applying ......
  • Canady v. Reynolds, Nos. O-94-308
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 24, 1994
    ...seek. See Davis v. State, 345 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 1984); see also Stacey v. State, 30 Or.App. 1075, 569 P.2d 640, 643 (1977); Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1982). However, we are not aware of any statutory provision in those states which specifically provides for a remedy wi......
  • Lance v. State, No. 21925
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 12, 1983
    ...have a sentence from a criminal conviction vacated, set aside or corrected. Rule 1, Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act; Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414 (1982). The determination by a circuit judge that a person is a habitual offender is not a criminal conviction, and the cons......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...counsel to assist him in preparing his PCR case. The State asked the PCR judge to dismiss the application pursuant to Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414 (1982) (PCR Act may be invoked only by someone claiming right to have sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected; the Act does not......
  • Wade v. State, No. 25409.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 11, 2002
    ...exception since the purpose of a PCR is to challenge a conviction not living conditions. See Al—Shabazz v. State, supra; Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414 (1982). The placement of the exception suggests the Legislature intended the ILA to apply to non-PCR inmate Further, applying ......
  • Canady v. Reynolds, Nos. O-94-308
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 24, 1994
    ...seek. See Davis v. State, 345 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 1984); see also Stacey v. State, 30 Or.App. 1075, 569 P.2d 640, 643 (1977); Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1982). However, we are not aware of any statutory provision in those states which specifically provides for a remedy wi......
  • Lance v. State, No. 21925
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 12, 1983
    ...have a sentence from a criminal conviction vacated, set aside or corrected. Rule 1, Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act; Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414 (1982). The determination by a circuit judge that a person is a habitual offender is not a criminal conviction, and the cons......
  • 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