Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - May 2015

Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.

5-6-2015 - Opinions

5297 - Trident Medical Center V. SCDHEC

These cross-appeals involve a decision of the South Carolina Administrative Law Court upholding the issuance by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control of a Certificate of Need for hospital construction in Berkeley County to both Roper St. Francis Hospital-Berkeley and Trident Medical Center, LLC pursuant to the State Certification of Need and Health Facility Licensure Act, S.C. Code Ann. ยง 44-7-110 to -394 (2002 and Supp. 2014). We affirm.

5315 - Johnson v. Grading

In this appeal from a negligence action, Sam English Grading, Inc. contends the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and denying its motions for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It also argues the trial court erred in giving a coercive version of an Allen charge. We affirm.

5-12-2015 - Opinions

5318 - SCDSS v. Williams

In this appeal from an order terminating Sheronda D. Williams's parental rights, we find termination of parental rights was not in the child's best interest. We reverse and remand for a new permanency planning hearing.

5-13-2015 - Opinions

5316 - Smith v. State

In this case involving section 17-28-30 of the South Carolina Code (2014), which provides for post-conviction DNA testing, Orlando Smith appeals the circuit court's application of the seven-year time limit for defendants who pled guilty or no contest. He argues he pled not guilty and the statute contains no time limit for those defendants. We reverse and remand.

5317 - Gonzales v. State

In this post-conviction relief (PCR) action, Michael Gonzales argues the PCR court erred in finding trial counsel was not ineffective for continuing to represent him despite a conflict of interest. We affirm.