Foster v. State

379 S.E.2d 907, 298 S.C. 306, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 99
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJune 9, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 379 S.E.2d 907 (Foster v. State) 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
Foster v. State, 379 S.E.2d 907, 298 S.C. 306, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 99 (S.C. 1989).

Opinion

ORDER

Petitioner is represented by counsel in this post-conviction matter pending before the Court. She attempted to file a substantive document relating to the case. Since this document was not submitted through counsel, we instructed the Clerk of Court to return the document. Counsel now takes *307 the position that we are required by S. C. Const. Art. I, § 14 1 to accept any document which a litigant wishes to file, regardless whether that document is submitted through counsel. We disagree.

This constitutional provision preserves and guarantees to litigants certain trial rights. It is therefore questionable whether this section has any application to appellate matters. Even if it is assumed that the section is applicable, we hold it does not establish a right to “hybrid representation,” that is, representation which is partially pro se and partially by counsel. See State v. Sanders, 269 S. C. 215, 237 S. E. (2d) 53 (1977).

Accordingly, the Clerk shall return petitioner’s document. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit any litigant’s right to file a pro se motion seeking to relieve his counsel, nor shall it in any way limit a pro se litigant’s right to file a brief in cases submitted pursuant to the procedures established in Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. (2d) 493 (1967) and Johnson v. State, 294 S. C. 310, 364 S. E. (2d) 201 (1988).

It is so ordered.

1

This section provides:

The right of trial by jury shall be preserved inviolate. Any person charged with an offense shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to be fully heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both. (Emphasis added.)

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

Related

John Lee Hrbek v. State of Iowa
Supreme Court of Iowa, 2021
City of Columbia v. Assa'ad-Faltas
800 S.E.2d 782 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2017)
State v. Devore
784 S.E.2d 690 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2016)
Miller v. State
697 S.E.2d 527 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2010)
Whelchel v. Bazzle
489 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D. South Carolina, 2006)
Dennison v. State
639 S.E.2d 35 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2006)
Norris v. Mumaw
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006
State v. Roberts
614 S.E.2d 626 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
State v. Cabrera-Pena
567 S.E.2d 472 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2002)
Jones v. State
558 S.E.2d 517 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2002)
Koon v. Clare
527 S.E.2d 357 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
State v. Stuckey
508 S.E.2d 564 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1998)
Atkins v. Moore
Fourth Circuit, 1998

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 S.E.2d 907, 298 S.C. 306, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-state-sc-1989.