Court Opinion

ID: 9909441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 15:09:01.717573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:18.077172
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                In The Supreme Court

   William Bruce Justice, Petitioner,

   v.

   State of South Carolina, Respondent.

   Appellate Case No. 2022-001680

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

              Appeal From Lexington County
          Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

                    Opinion No. 28183
   Submitted September 13, 2023 – Filed December 13, 2023

                         AFFIRMED

   Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy and Pro Bono
   Program Director, Taylor Davis Gilliam, both of
   Columbia, for Petitioner.

   Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
   Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka and Matthew C.
   Buchanan, all of Columbia, for Respondent. Matthew A.
   Abee and Yasmeen Ebbini, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
             Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, for Root and Rebound,
             Amicus Curiae.

        PER CURIAM: Petitioner was convicted in 1989 of multiple counts of
second-degree burglary, grand larceny, and petit larceny, for which he was sentenced
to a total of sixty years in prison. Petitioner was paroled in 2012. In 2013, Petitioner
was arrested for violating the terms of his parole. His parole was revoked following
a hearing, and he was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence.

       In 2014, Petitioner brought this post-conviction relief action ("PCR")
challenging the revocation of his parole on the basis he was not afforded the minimal
requirements of due process. Among his allegations, Petitioner asserted he was
denied the right to confront adverse witnesses at the parole revocation hearing
because he was made to leave the room during the testimony of an adverse witness,
without explanation and without a finding by the hearing officer of the necessity for
his removal; he was not permitted to question any adverse witnesses; and he was not
permitted a reasonable opportunity to present his side of the case because the hearing
officer abruptly cut off his testimony after a few minutes and stated that he had
"enough information," but then proceeded to hear the testimony of an adverse
witness in Petitioner's absence.1 The PCR judge issued an order denying Petitioner's
application for relief, finding Petitioner failed to prove the existence of any
constitutional violations or deprivations.
       Petitioner appealed, and the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot
because Petitioner was released from prison while his appeal was pending. See
Justice v. State, Op. No. 2022-UP-186 (S.C. Ct. App. filed May 4, 2022) (dismissing
the appeal without oral argument). This Court granted a petition for a writ of
certiorari from Petitioner to review the decision of the court of appeals. After
carefully reviewing the record, we affirm the determination of the court of appeals
that the appeal is moot and that Petitioner has not established any exceptions to
mootness are applicable in this case. However, we are gravely concerned by
Petitioner's allegations and his assertion that these are the standard operating

1
 A recording of the parole revocation hearing has been filed as an exhibit with this
Court. It indicates the hearing lasted about ten minutes.
procedures in parole revocation matters. Accordingly, we look forward to the
opportunity to consider a case that is not moot and that properly places these issues
before the Court.
      AFFIRMED.

      BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES, JJ., and Acting Justice
Letitia H. Verdin, concur.