State v. Spruill

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Spruill

601 S.E.2d 196, 358 N.C. 730, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 877, 2004 WL 1790809

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 23, 2004

DocketNo. 404A92-5

StatusPublished

This text of 601 S.E.2d 196 (State v. Spruill) 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

State v. Spruill, 601 S.E.2d 196, 358 N.C. 730, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 877, 2004 WL 1790809 (S.C. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Defendant’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is allowed. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that defendant satisfied N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006 by proving that he was mentally retarded, as defined in N.C.G.S. § 15A-2005(a), at the time of the commission of the capital crime in 1984. This Court finds no basis for disturbing such conclusion of law and holds that a defendant who satisfied N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006 is lawfully entitled to appropriate relief pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006. Accordingly, the Superior Court, Northampton County, is hereby ordered to grant defendant appropriate relief pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 23rd day of July, 2004.

s/Brady, J.

For the Court

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th day of July 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Northampton County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

“Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of July 2004.

s/Brady, J.

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

ORDER

Defendant’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is allowed. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that defendant satisfied N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006 by proving that he was mentally retarded, as defined in N.C.G.S. § 15A-2005(a), at the time of the commission of the capital crime in 1984. This Court finds no basis for disturbing such conclusion of law and holds that a defendant who satisfied N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006 is lawfully entitled to appropriate relief pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006. Accordingly, the Superior Court, Northampton County, is hereby ordered to grant defendant appropriate relief pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-2006.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 23rd day of July, 2004.

s/Brady, J.

For the Court

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th day of July 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Northampton County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

“Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of July 2004.

s/Brady, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 S.E.2d 196, 358 N.C. 730, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 877, 2004 WL 1790809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spruill-sc-2004.