Crowe v. Leeke

259 S.E.2d 614, 273 S.C. 763, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 501
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 25, 1979
Docket21073
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 259 S.E.2d 614 (Crowe v. Leeke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crowe v. Leeke, 259 S.E.2d 614, 273 S.C. 763, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 501 (S.C. 1979).

Opinion

Lewis, Chief Justice:

The appellant filed an application for Post-Conviction Relief which was denied. Through this appeal, he asserts the hearing judge should have found his constitutional rights were violated by the actions of the Department of Corrections in transferring him within the prison system and downgrading his custody status. We disagree.

In addition to the aforementioned allegations, the appellant’s petition contained other allegations which were properly cognizable under the Uniform Post-Conviction Proce *764 dures Act. Due to the actions of the parties and the court below, we have construed the appellant’s petition with regard to the issues on appeal to be in the nature of a habeas corpus proceeding. Viewed otherwise, the hearing judge would have been without authority to consider this matter because a proceeding for the harm asserted by the appellant is not envisioned by the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedures Act.

The record is indicative of the good faith exercise of the discretionary power of the prison officials in the maintenance of order, discipline, and security among the prison population and, as such, is not subject to judicial review. It is void of proof that they acted arbitrarily, capriciously or from personal bias, or prejudice. See Sellers v. State, 259 S. C. 564, 193 S. E. (2d) 513 (1972); Swinton v. State, 261 S. C. 372, 200 S. E. (2d) 77 (1973). On the contrary, the respondent’s determinations concerned routine administrative actions that were accomplished in good faith.

Affirmed.

Littlejohn, Ness, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chisolm v. SCDC
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2011
Glenn v. SCDC
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2011
Skipper v. South Carolina Department of Corrections
633 S.E.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006)
Al-Shabazz v. State
527 S.E.2d 742 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Tutt v. State
290 S.E.2d 414 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1982)
Pruitt v. State
266 S.E.2d 779 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 S.E.2d 614, 273 S.C. 763, 1979 S.C. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowe-v-leeke-sc-1979.