Koon v. Clare

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Koon v. Clare

527 S.E.2d 357, 338 S.C. 423, 2000 S.C. LEXIS 18

DecidedJanuary 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.E.2d 357 (Koon v. Clare) 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

Koon v. Clare, 527 S.E.2d 357, 338 S.C. 423, 2000 S.C. LEXIS 18 (S.C. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[424]*424ORDER

Petitioner, represented by counsel, has an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals. He has filed a pro se petition in this Court’s original jurisdiction seeking to have this Court order the Clerk of the Court of Appeals to take certain action or to have this Court order him relief.

This Court has previously stated that there is no right to hybrid representation on appeal. State v. Stuckey, 333 S.C. 56, 508 S.E.2d 564 (1998); Foster v. State, 298 S.C. 306, 379 S.E.2d 907 (1989). The rationale behind those decisions applies equally to situations where a litigant who is represented by counsel before the Court of Appeals seeks review of action taken by the Court of Appeals pending a final decision on the matter by that court. See Aiken Speir Inc. v. Henry, 326 S.C. 268, 486 S.E.2d 492 (1997) (this Court will only review final decisions of the Court of Appeals).

Accordingly, we decline to take action on the pending petition. Should similar petitions be filed in the future, the Clerk of this Court is instructed to inform the petitioner that no action will be taken on the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ernest A. Finney, Jr., C.J. /s/ Jean H. Toal, J. /s/ James E. Moore, J. /s/ John H. Waller, Jr., J. /s/ E.C. Burnett, III, J.

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

[424]*424ORDER

Petitioner, represented by counsel, has an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals. He has filed a pro se petition in this Court’s original jurisdiction seeking to have this Court order the Clerk of the Court of Appeals to take certain action or to have this Court order him relief.

This Court has previously stated that there is no right to hybrid representation on appeal. State v. Stuckey, 333 S.C. 56, 508 S.E.2d 564 (1998); Foster v. State, 298 S.C. 306, 379 S.E.2d 907 (1989). The rationale behind those decisions applies equally to situations where a litigant who is represented by counsel before the Court of Appeals seeks review of action taken by the Court of Appeals pending a final decision on the matter by that court. See Aiken Speir Inc. v. Henry, 326 S.C. 268, 486 S.E.2d 492 (1997) (this Court will only review final decisions of the Court of Appeals).

Accordingly, we decline to take action on the pending petition. Should similar petitions be filed in the future, the Clerk of this Court is instructed to inform the petitioner that no action will be taken on the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ernest A. Finney, Jr., C.J. /s/ Jean H. Toal, J. /s/ James E. Moore, J. /s/ John H. Waller, Jr., J. /s/ E.C. Burnett, III, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 S.E.2d 357, 338 S.C. 423, 2000 S.C. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koon-v-clare-sc-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack