Rule 11 sanctions do not apply in PCR actions
In Hiott v. State, the S.C. Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, holding that a trial judge cannot impose sanctions on a PCR applicant under Rule 11 for filing frivolous proceedings.
At the PCR hearing, petitioner claimed that counsel was ineffective for not discovering that the victim in his case had been abused by another family member; however, petitioner himself was aware of the alleged prior abuse and did not tell his trial counsel. The trial judge denied the PCR and then sanctioned the petitioner $3000 (which he was never going to be able to pay anyway, as he is incarcerated) for filing a frivolous proceeding. The Court of Appeals upheld the sanction, holding that, since PCR's are governed by the rules of civil procedure, Rule 11 must also apply.
The Supreme Court overruled, pointing out that allowing trial judges to sanction PCR applicants for frivolous proceedings would have a chilling effect on prisoners' exercise of a constitutional right. They noted that in In Wade v. State, 348 S.C. 255, 559 S.E.2d 843 (2002), the SCSCt has already held that a trial judge cannot revoke an petitioner's inmate credits under the Prisoner Litigation Act for filing frivolous proceedings or for testifying falsely, as it would chill a prisoner's exercise of a constitutional right.
There are safeguards in place to limit frivolous proceedings - successive applications are barred unless new evidence is discovered, there is a one year statute of limitations on PCR applications, and there is a one year statute of limitations following the discovery of new evidence. Essentially, every inmate who feels that they have a claim to PCR will get one bite at the apple, and the courts are just going to have to deal with the non-meritorious claims to ensure that we do not miss the claims that do have merit.
Comments
Hi, I am the HIOTT of the case... Hiott v State that is being remarked on here. I seen the blog and wanted to post myself. In my PCR action, I presented claims that my attorney was ineffective because he was not prepared for trial. This was not HIS error it was the State that had within their possesion the rape protocal kit that proved I did not commit the injuries to my daughter. It was not a family memeber that raped my daughter, it was a family friend, when she was five. The State gave this indivual probation and a trial was never had. My wife and I never knew the results of the rape protocol kit because the individual plead without knowledge of my wife and I. The state did not disclose the information that this individual plead, that the rape protocol kit showed the exact trauma that the were accusing me of occured 6 years prior. Not only that, but, the evidence that the State did not disclose, committed by another individual 6 years prior, was specifically used to convict me. My original charge was CSC 2nd and incest, the jury would not convict me on the CSC, however, I was the only person they were told could have done these acts. The State back peddled these issues, as they always do, and stated it was my fault that I did not remember. How did I know that there was evidence that could prove that I did not commit these injuries, what's more, I did not know the outcome of their rape exam. This Brady evidence remained in their possesion. The State said they found it pattenly absurd that I would forget the rape of my daughter 10 years prior. I find it pattenly absurd that when the State prosecution received the 2002 rape protocol results that by the same name and Social Security number they did not discover 2 exams, one from 1992. You mean thay did not look at both of these exams? Not only not disclose this evidence to the defense but use it to convict him. The State did not want to address these issues, so they repeated themselves in my PCR case...make me guilty, even when they knew it was impossible.
Posted by: Milton Daniel Hiott | July 29, 2009 4:57 AM
Thank you for the information. It is important for people to know your story, beyond what the SCt wrote in their opinion.
Posted by: BFrederick | August 5, 2009 7:16 AM