Wines v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18615,18615 |
| Citation | 153 S.E.2d 392,249 S.C. 191 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Arthur E. WINES, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina et al., Respondent. |
William A. Dallis, George H. Davis, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Daniel R. McLoed, Atty. Gen., Edward B. Latimer, Carl R. Reasonover, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.
In this habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the circuit court denying, following a hearing, the relief sought by petitioner. Petitioner was represented below and is represented here by appointed counsel.
Petitioner has a history of mental illness dating back to at least 1944. The record reflects that most of his adult life has been spent in the South Carolina Penitentiary serving several sentences, including sentences for manslaughter and assault and battery with intent to kill. In May 1964 he became entitled to his release from the penitentiary, and since that time he has been neither under sentence, nor charged with any crime. Realizing his mental condition, petitioner became a voluntary patient at the State Hospital, in May 1964; remained there for twenty-one days, and was then returned by the hospital to that portion of the penitentiary designated as 'a facility of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health' pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 32--933 of the 1962 Code of Laws, as amended by the Acts of 1964. Petitioner is not under formal commitment by any court to the State Hospital.
His petition alleges that he was transferred to the facility at the State Penitentiary after havign been classified by the hospital as 'insane and dangerous'. Evidence adduced on the hearing below is to the effect that petitioner is suffering from undifferentiated schizophrenia; that he is considered by the staff to be potentially dangerous, and that the State Hospital does not have facilities, other than at the penitentiary, to care for him in safety to petitioner and other patients. There is evidence that on one occasion petitioner inflicted injury to himself, in addition to committing crimes of violence upon others.
The petitioner disclaims any right to be released, and seeks only to be confined and treated in a mental health facility, other than at the penitentiary. The sole question presented by the appeal is whether, under existing law, the South Carolina State Hospital has authority to confine and treat petitioner at the facility at the State Penitentiary.
The question presented is a serious one which, in fairness to the petitioner and the State Hospital, we do not think we should decide in the present state of the record, which discloses other serious questions, not presented to or considered by the court below, nor raised here.
The petitioner does not seek his immediate or absolute release, but only a change in the place of his confinement and treatment....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider v. State, 18710
...void as to him for failure to appoint a guardian ad litem. Appellant relies solely on the recent decision of this court in Wines v. State, S.C., 153 S.E.2d 392, overlooking the factual distinction that such case was a civil proceeding whereas the orders of which appellant complains were ent......