In the Matter of James Young v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedSeptember 28, 2010
Docket2010-UP-421
StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Matter of James Young v. State (In the Matter of James Young v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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 James Young v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

In The Matter Of The Care And Treatment Of James D. Young, Respondent,

v.

The State, Appellant.


Appeal From Pickens County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-421
Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed September 28, 2010
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled November 1, 2010


REVERSED AND REMANDED


Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General. Deborah R. J. Shupe, Assistant Attorney General R. Westmoreland Clarkson, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, for Appellant.

Appellate Defender LaNelle DuRant, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this civil commitment action, the State of South Carolina appeals the trial court's finding of no probable cause to conduct a full psychological evaluation on James Young, and proceed with a trial on the civil commitment of Young as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 44-48-30(1) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2009).  We reverse, pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Care and Treatment of Chandler v. State, 382 S.C. 250, 256, 676 S.E.2d 676, 679 (2009) (reversing the trial court's finding of no probable cause, as not reasonably supported by the evidence in light of prior similar crimes demonstrating a propensity to engage in criminal sexual conduct as well as failure to complete sex offender treatment). 

REVERSED AND REMANDED.[1]

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1]  We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

Related

Care and Treatment of Chandler v. State
676 S.E.2d 676 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In the Matter of James Young v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-james-young-v-state-scctapp-2010.