Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

South Carolina Litigation Act Does Not Apply to Post-conviction Proceedings

South Carolina state prisoner Stacy Wade pled guilty to various drug charges. Without filing a direct appeal, he filed for post conviction relief (PCR) for allegedly being coerced into the plea bargain. Wade's testimony of coercion at his PCR hearing was rebutted by his own lawyers. The PCR court denied relief and, pursuant to the Inmate Litigation Act (ILA), S.C. Code Ann. § 24 27 200 (Supp. 2000), revoked Wade's sentence reduction credits for giving false testimony. On certiorari, the revocation was reversed.

In a case of first impression, the Second Division of the Supreme Court held that several provisions of the ILA mirrored the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court decided that if the state legislature had intended for the ILA to apply to PCR actions they would have first mandated filing fees for PCR applications. The court further held that the problem with applying the ILA to PCR proceedings was that it gives the state power to punish prisoners for asserting constitutional rights while non incarcerated applicants can assert those rights without fear of retribution. The state proffered no justification for such disparate treatment. See: Wade v. State, 348 S.C. 255, 559 S.E.2d 843 (S.C., 2002).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Wade v. State