Young v. State

• Decision Date: 10 November 2021
• Docket Number: 2021-UP-401
• Parties: Steve Young, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-002412
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Steve Young, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002412

No. 2021-UP-401

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

November 10, 2021

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted September 22, 2021

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Newberry County R. Scott Sprouse, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Michael Jacob Neubauer, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

1

Steve Young pled guilty in 2011 to first-degree assault and battery and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment suspended to time served and four years' probation. The plea judge ordered probation would terminate after two years if Young paid restitution.

In 2012-not long after his probation began-Young pled guilty to reckless homicide and leaving the scene of an accident. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Though this plea occurred while Young was on probation, the offences occurred before Young was placed on probation.

After Young's 2012 plea, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (Probation) issued a citation so the circuit court could review Young's probation sentence from 2011. The citation did not allege Young violated the terms of his probation; rather, it specifically stated "[n]o violations charged." Probation sought an order tolling Young's probation during his incarceration due to the 2012 plea.

At the hearing, Young's counsel argued there could be no tolling unless Young had violated his probation, citing language in State v. Miller, 404 S.C. 29, 744 S.E.2d 532 (2013). This objection led the court to ask whether Young was current on his fees. When the probation agent disclosed Young was not current, the court found Young willfully violated his probation. The court tolled Young's probation and extended it an additional year.

Young's counsel did not ask to offer evidence about Young's probation fees or object after the circuit court found Young violated his probation. As noted above, counsel only objected that the citation did not allege any violations. Young appealed the circuit court's decision and this court affirmed. See State v. Young, Op. No. 2015-UP-345 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 15, 2015).

Young filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging his counsel...