Stichert v. Heath

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Stichert v. Heath

334 S.E.2d 282, 286 S.C. 456, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 467

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 29, 1985

Docket22368

StatusPublished

This text of 334 S.E.2d 282 (Stichert v. Heath) 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

Stichert v. Heath, 334 S.E.2d 282, 286 S.C. 456, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 467 (S.C. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Respondent was jailed on a fugitive warrant from Texas, pending extradition. He petitioned the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus. The lower court issued an order quashing the fugitive warrant and placing respondent on probation. We reverse.

The State contends that the appeal is moot because respondent has voluntarily given himself up to the Texas authorities. However, respondent's return to Texas does not render moot that portion of the order requiring him to be placed on probation in South Carolina for five years. Because respondent had never been convicted of a crime, nor accepted in this State for probation supervision, the circuit court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. The portion of the circuit court's order which placed respondent on probation in this State is void. State v. Funderburk, 259 S. C. 256, 191 S. E. (2d) 520 (1972).

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is

Reversed.

Finney, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam:

Respondent was jailed on a fugitive warrant from Texas, pending extradition. He petitioned the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus. The lower court issued an order quashing the fugitive warrant and placing respondent on probation. We reverse.

The State contends that the appeal is moot because respondent has voluntarily given himself up to the Texas authorities. However, respondent's return to Texas does not render moot that portion of the order requiring him to be placed on probation in South Carolina for five years. Because respondent had never been convicted of a crime, nor accepted in this State for probation supervision, the circuit court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. The portion of the circuit court's order which placed respondent on probation in this State is void. State v. Funderburk, 259 S. C. 256, 191 S. E. (2d) 520 (1972).

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is

Reversed.

Finney, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 S.E.2d 282, 286 S.C. 456, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stichert-v-heath-sc-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack