In the Matter of Derrick

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Matter of Derrick

392 S.E.2d 180, 301 S.C. 367, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 104

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 30, 1990

Docket23205

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 392 S.E.2d 180 (In the Matter of Derrick) 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

In the Matter of Derrick, 392 S.E.2d 180, 301 S.C. 367, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 104 (S.C. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is a judicial disciplinary matter. Respondent is the former municipal judge for the towns of Perry and Salley, South Carolina. He was convicted in magistrate’s court of breach of trust with fraudulent intent, a crime of moral turpitude. In re: Sipes, 297 S.C. 531, 377 S.E. (2d) 574 (1989). The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court and the appeal to this Court was voluntarily dismissed. Subsequently, a complaint was filed in this disciplinary matter charging respondent with judicial misconduct based on the conviction.

Throughout this proceeding, respondent has maintained his innocence of the crime for which he was convicted in magistrate’s court. While we consider this evidence in mitigation, respondent may not relitigate the validity of his conviction in this proceeding. We find respondent violated the Rule 34 on Judicial Discipline and Standards, § 1(b), by his conviction for a crime of moral turpitude. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.

Public reprimand.

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

Per Curiam:

This is a judicial disciplinary matter. Respondent is the former municipal judge for the towns of Perry and Salley, South Carolina. He was convicted in magistrate’s court of breach of trust with fraudulent intent, a crime of moral turpitude. In re: Sipes, 297 S.C. 531, 377 S.E. (2d) 574 (1989). The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court and the appeal to this Court was voluntarily dismissed. Subsequently, a complaint was filed in this disciplinary matter charging respondent with judicial misconduct based on the conviction.

Throughout this proceeding, respondent has maintained his innocence of the crime for which he was convicted in magistrate’s court. While we consider this evidence in mitigation, respondent may not relitigate the validity of his conviction in this proceeding. We find respondent violated the Rule 34 on Judicial Discipline and Standards, § 1(b), by his conviction for a crime of moral turpitude. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.

Public reprimand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 S.E.2d 180, 301 S.C. 367, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-derrick-sc-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack