Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rev. Charles E. Seastrunk, Jr. as follows:
Our thought for today is from Isaiah 51:1a: "Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn."
Let us pray. Almighty God, help us to remember whose we are. As servants of the people give us the strength, the courage, and the integrity to stand when tested and tried and weary. Give us strength to move from fear to faith. Do not forsake us for we are Your own. Preserve our Nation, our President, our State and her leaders. Bless and protect our defenders of freedom. O Lord, hear our prayer. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. ANTHONY moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of former Representative W. Marshall Comer of Union, which was agreed to.
The following was received:
January 17, 2006
Dear Members of the General Assembly:
Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate qualifications. This report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this report to be qualified.
The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified and nominated means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached report details each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria.
Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 noon on Thursday, January 19, 2006. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until 12:00 noon on January 19, 2006. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact the Commission office at 212-6092.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr.
Chairman
January 17, 2006
Members of the South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina State House
Columbia, South Carolina
Dear Fellow Members:
This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning judicial candidates' contact with members of the General Assembly as well as third parties contacting members on candidates' behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Fall 2005 screening.
Section 2-19-70 (C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that "the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications." Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are legislators.
In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission's report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours has expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates' qualifications.
The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate's fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at 212-6629.
Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr. James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Chairman Vice Chairman
Date Draft Report Issued: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Date and Time Final Report Issued: 12:00 noon on Thursday, January 19, 2006
Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until 12:00 noon on Thursday, January 19, 2006.
To: Members of the General Assembly
From: F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Re: Changes to Report of Candidate Qualifications
Date: January 17, 2006
Enclosed are errata sheets for your copy of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications.
Please insert these sheets to replace pages in your copy of the report. Thank you for your attention to this request.
The changes made to the Report of Candidate Qualifications are as follows:
Pages 106, 116, and 117 R. Knox McMahon Report
Page 198 Report Conclusion
*Editorial Note: The numbered errata pages referred to in the Report will not be referenced correctly when printed in the Journal. For your convenience, the pertinent portions have been copied and inserted in the correct places in the Report.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. McMahon meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. McMahon was born on December 15, 1947. He is 58 years old and a resident of Lexington, South Carolina. Mr. McMahon provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. McMahon.
Mr. McMahon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
In its investigation of Mr. McMahon's candidacy, the Commission received multiple negative Bench and Bar Surveys that questioned Mr. McMahon's willingness to timely share evidence with opposing counsel in criminal cases while he served as an assistant solicitor. Mr. McMahon stated in his interview with counsel and at his public hearing that in his years of service as an assistant solicitor, he had an open file policy with opposing counsel and that he did not recall ever having been sanctioned by a judge for withholding evidence.*
*difficulty of presenting the downtown Columbia area, the lower Richland area and Fort Jackson as they appeared in 1961. I spent a great deal of time preparing the case for historical accuracy. The South Carolina Supreme Court has affirmed this case.
Since the trial and appellant decision in this case I have attempted to research and determine the oldest murder case in American history from the time of the offense until the time of the trial. It has been a very difficult undertaking. I am familiar with cases that are older but most of those have been resolved by guilty plea. Most legal observers that I have spoken to are of the opinion that the Freiburger case is among the oldest murder cases (if not the oldest) from the date of the commission of the offense to the date of the trial and jury verdict in American history."
Mr. McMahon reported he had not personally handled any civil appeals.
Mr. McMahon further reported that he held the following judicial position:
"Lexington Municipal Judge 1980-1981; Limited to $200.00/30 days criminal, no civil jurisdiction. This court resolved traffic citations issued by Lexington Town Police Officers for violations, which the officers either observed personally or were the result of traffic accidents and misdemeanor arrest warrants within the jurisdiction of the town court. Most cases were resolved by bond forfeiture or bench trial; however, there were some jury trials over which I presided."
Mr. McMahon also stated:
"I was a private practicing attorney with an emphasis on civil litigation while I was a part time Lexington Municipal Judge."
Mr. McMahon ran unsuccessfully for a Circuit Court At-Large seat in 1999.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
In its investigation of Mr. McMahon's candidacy, the Commission received multiple negative Bench and Bar surveys that questioned Mr. McMahon's judicial temperament which the Commission fully addressed with Mr. McMahon at his public hearing. As a result of his public hearing testimony, the Commission believes that Mr. McMahon's temperament would be excellent.*
*(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. McMahon to be "a very qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."
Mr. McMahon is married to Connie Juanita (Nita) Derrick McMahon. He has four children.
Mr. McMahon reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) Richland County Bar."
Mr. McMahon provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"I was formally a volunteer with Dream Riders a program for mentally and physically handicapped children and adults which allows these individuals to interact with and ride horses under the supervision of experienced riders and instructors. This program assisted these individuals in reaching their goals whatever they may be. Some of the riders competed in horse shows and Special Olympics and received recognition for it. My role was one of assistance in any manner requested and for which I was qualified. This may include being a side walker posted next to the horse while the rider was mounted or may include cooling down the horses or cleaning out the stalls."
Mr. McMahon also stated:
"I have tried hundreds of cases to jury verdict throughout South Carolina. Most of these cases have been in General Sessions court and in 1999 I was awarded the Ernest F. Hollings Award for Excellence in State Prosecutions (General Sessions). Since my retirement I have focused primarily on civil matters relating to Common Pleas. I was familiar with the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Criminal Procedure and now I am familiar with the Rules of Civil Procedures. I have tried two cases before juries in Common Pleas within the last year. When I ran for Circuit Judge in 1999 many observers opined that I was eminently qualified in the field of criminal law but lacked experience in the civil arena. I do not believe this is now the case."
The Commission commented on Mr. McMahon's wide variety of criminal experience as a former assistant solicitor. They found him qualified and nominated him for the Circuit Court.*
*The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:
Costa M. Pleicones Supreme Court, Seat 2
Thomas E. Huff... Court of Appeals, Seat 8
Ralph Ferrell Cothran, Jr. Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Wm. Thomas Geddings, Jr. Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
George C. "Buck" James, Jr. Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
J. Michael Baxley Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
L. Casey Manning Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Roger L. Couch Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
James W. Johnson, Jr. Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Daniel F. Pieper Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Alexander S. Macaulay Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Wm. Paul Keesley Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Kellum W. Allen Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
R. Knox McMahon Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Lisa Lee Smith Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
John C. Few Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Perry M. Buckner III Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Diane P. DeWitt Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Carmen Tevis Mullen Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Thomas C. Taylor Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Rochelle Y. Williamson Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Ralph K. "Tripp" Anderson III Administrative Law Court, Seat 6*
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law that went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission also has engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.
The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences (lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees also are diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidates either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on its assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports also have been included in the Commission's report for your review.
The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) court schedule study;
(10) study of appellate record;
(11) court observation; and
(12) investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate's fitness for judicial service.
The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.
Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues are no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.
Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's court rooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.
This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to Appellate Courts, Circuit Court, Family Court, and Administrative Law Court.
In November 2005, Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman, and Senator Thomas L. Moore, Member, announced their resignations from the Commission in order to provide an opportunity for other people to serve. Senator McConnell named Senator James H. Ritchie, Jr. as the Commission's new Chairman and appointed Senator Robert Ford and Senator Ray Cleary to serve on the Commission.
The current Commission wishes to thank Senator McConnell for his invaluable service of leadership in helping to create the Commission and in serving every alternate year as its Chairman since its inception. The current Commission wishes to further acknowledge the invaluable service Senator Moore provided to the Commission as a member since its inception. The current Commission also thanks former Chief Counsel Michael N. Couick who retired on July 25, 2005 for his outstanding service since the inception of the Commission.
The Commission also expresses its thanks to Judicial Fellows: Amelia Goulding, Chad Alexander Mitchell, and R. Douglas Webb for their assistance with the Fall 2005 screening.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Justice Pleicones since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Justice Pleicones meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court justice.
Justice Pleicones was born on February 29, 1944. He is 61 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Justice Pleicones provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1968.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Justice Pleicones.
Justice Pleicones demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to Justices, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Justice Pleicones reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Justice Pleicones reported that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Justice Pleicones stated that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Justice Pleicones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Justice Pleicones described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
05/01 Family Court Judges Seminar;
07/01 Judicial Ethics Workshop;
10/01 New Federal Rules;
01/01 Annual Criminal Law/Civil Law Update, held at S.C. Bar Convention;
08/01 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference;
01/02 Ethical Issues;
01/02 "Breakfast Ethics";
08/02 SCTLA Annual Convention;
10/02 South Carolina Automobile Insurance;
01/02 Annual Criminal Law/Civil Law Update, held at S.C. Bar Convention;
08/02 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference;
08/03 Judicial Opinion Writing;
10/03 N.C./S.C. Labor and Employment Law;
12/03 Institute on Science in the Courts;
01/03 Annual Criminal Law/Civil Law Update, held at S.C. Bar Convention;
08/03 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference;
07/04 Roscoe Pound Forum on Co-Equality of State Courts;
08/04 Judicial Office Oath;
09/04 Wofford and the Law;
10/04 SCAARLA Meeting w/Oath;
01/04 Annual Criminal Law/Civil Law Update, held at SC Bar Convention;
08/04 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference;
01/05 Construction Law, AEI-Brookings;
06/05 The Ethics of Individualism for Judges;
07/05 NFJE Symposium, Justice and Science;
07/05 Roscoe Pound Institute - Electronic Discovery;
01/05 Annual Criminal Law/Civil Law Update, held at S.C. Bar Convention;
08/05 Annual South Carolina Judicial Conference.
Justice Pleicones reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) SCAARLA Administrative Law Update, October 2004;
(b) Professionalism Lecture Series-Charleston School of Law, September 2005;
(c) Professionalism Panel, Wofford and the Law, September 2004;
(d) SCTLA Oath Seminar, December 2004;
(e) N.C./S.C. Labor and Employment Law Panel, October 2003;
(f) Ethics Seminar, S.C. Bar, January 2002;
(g) Additionally, I am called on to speak before professional, school, and business groups almost every month. I do not keep specific notes on these appearances."
Justice Pleicones reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Justice Pleicones did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Justice Pleicones did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Justice Pleicones has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Justice Pleicones was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
5) Reputation:
Justice Pleicones reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Justice Pleicones further reported that he attained the rank of Colonel in the U.S. Army & Army Reserve while serving from November 25, 1968 until March 1, 1999. In March 1999, he retired honorably from the military.
(6) Physical Health:
Justice Pleicones appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Justice Pleicones appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Justice Pleicones was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1968.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since law school graduation:
"June 1968 - November 1968: Preparation of course materials for proposed South Carolina Bar Course.
November 1968 - March 1973: Active Duty United States Army. Legal experience included Chief of Military Justice and Trial Counsel (Prosecutor).
March 1973 - February 1975: Assistant Public Defender for Richland County, South Carolina. Duties entailed defense preparation for and trial of indigent persons accused of criminal offenses. Cases ranged from murder charges through Magistrate and Municipal Court offenses.
February 1975 - February 1976: Private Practice with law offices of N. Welch Morrisette, and Independent Contractor with Richland County Public Defender Agency. Private Practice duties entailed preparation and trial of federal and state civil matters. Independent Contractor duties continued Public Defense duties.
February 1976 - March 1977: Chief Deputy Public Defender, Richland County, South Carolina. Duties included supervision of personnel, in addition to the preparation and trial of major criminal charges such as murder, armed robbery, etc.
March 1977 - January 1981: Private practitioner in general civil and criminal practice with the firm of Harrison and Pleicones, Columbia, South Carolina. Additionally served as Assistant County Attorney for Richland County (August 1977 - December 1978) and as County Attorney for Richland County (January 1979 - January 1981). Duties included representing Richland County in litigation matters, advising County Council and supervising a staff of twelve.
January 1981 - June 1991: Sole General Practitioner (January 1981 - October 1984). Partner in Lewis, Babcock, Pleicones & Hawkins (formerly Lewis, Babcock, Gregory & Pleicones) of Columbia, South Carolina (October 1984 - June 1991). The firm grew in that time from four to thirteen lawyers and engaged in major civil litigation (both plaintiff and defense litigation).
Served as member of three-person executive committee of the firm. Other responsibilities included legislative monitoring and liaison work with the South Carolina General Assembly for two large trade associations. Additional duties as Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia from September 1982 through March 1988.
At all times during my years as a lawyer my emphasis was heavily on trial practice."
Justice Pleicones reported that he has held the following prior judicial positions:
"March 2000 - Present: Associate Justice, Supreme Court of South Carolina. Elected by the General Assembly of South Carolina. Appellate Jurisdiction, state court of last resort.
July 1991 - March 2000: Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. Elected by the General Assembly of South Carolina. General civil and criminal jurisdiction.
September 1982 - March 1988: Municipal Judge, (part-time) City of Columbia, South Carolina. Appointed. Criminal jurisdiction only. Limit of 30 days or $200.00."
Justice Pleicones provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Arthurs, ex rel. Estate of Munn v. Aiken County, 346 S.C. 97, 551 S.E.2d 579 (2001) (Articulation of the public duty rule).
(b) State v. Jones, 343 S.C. 562, 541 S.E.2d 813 (2001) (Portion of opinion relating to the admissibility of scientific evidence).
(c) JRS Builders, Inc. v. Nuensinger, 364 S.C. 596, 614 S.E.2d 629 (2005) (Dissent in a separation of powers case).
(d) State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141, 604 S.E.2d 377 (2004) (Affirming death penalty holding no deprivation of right to jury on sentencing following entry of unconditional guilty plea. Case involved interpretation of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)).
(e) Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 550 S.E.2d 319 (2001) (Setting forth test for determining whether hospital may be held liable for acts of physicians)."
Justice Pleicones reported the following regarding employment in the military during his service as a judge:
"Officer (Colonel), United States Army Reserve, 1973 - 1999. Beginning in August 1993, I served as Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer from 1st United States Army to the South Carolina National Guard and militia in South Carolina. Prior to that I was Commander of the 12th Military Law Center. The commanders of 1st Army and of the 120th ARCOM were my supervisors. All duties were military in nature."
Justice Pleicones further reported that he was an unsuccessful candidate for the following public or judicial offices:
"1982 primary campaign for Richland County Council;
1994 and 1995 campaigns for Supreme Court Associate Justice seat."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Justice Pleicones' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Justice Pleicones to be "a qualified and highly regarded justice."
Justice Pleicones is married to Donna Singletary Pleicones. He has two children.
Justice Pleicones reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar; at one time I was a member of the House of Delegates.
(b) Richland County Bar; no offices held."
Justice Pleicones provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) John Belton O'Neall Chapter, American Inns of Court; Resigned 2003;
(b) Order of AHEPA;
(c) Kappa Alpha Order Court of Honor, 2004;
(d) Honorary Doctorate, Wofford College, 2002;
(e) Honorary Doctorate, University of South Carolina, 2005;
(f) Palmetto Patriot Award, South Carolina Adjutant General;
(g) Legion of Merit, Secretary of the Army."
Justice Pleicones additionally reported, "I work hard and have a good sense of humor. I tend to be impatient."
The Commission commented that Justice Pleicones is an exemplary person and noted that this State is fortunate to have him serving on the Appellate Court bench. The Commission found Justice Pleicones qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Supreme Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Huff meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Huff was born on June 5, 1949. He is 56 years old and a resident of North Augusta, South Carolina. Judge Huff provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Huff.
A complaint was filed before the Commission in opposition to Judge Huff's candidacy. The complainant, Mr. Marion Driggers, was an appellant in a case before Judge Huff and two other members of the Court of Appeals in 2002. Upon losing the appeal, Mr. Driggers filed the complaint against Judge Huff, claiming Judge Huff's decision in the case was incorrect and politically motivated. Mr. Driggers filed a similar complaint against Judge Jasper Cureton in 2003 when Judge Cureton was screened by the Commission. Judge Cureton was another member of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel handling Mr. Driggers' case.
Judge Huff thoroughly responded to the issues alleged in the complaint. The Commission found that Judge Huff's decision was properly grounded in the applicable law and that the basis for Mr. Driggers' complaint had no relation to his 2002 case before Judge Huff and the three-judge panel. As such, the Commission concluded that Mr. Driggers' complaint in no way spoke to Judge Huff's fitness to serve on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Huff demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Huff reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Huff testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Huff testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Huff to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Huff described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"08/24/05 SCCA, Annual Judicial Conference;
06/18/04 S.C. BAR, Hot Topics in Civil Law for S.C.;
08/19/04 SCCA, Judicial Conference;
11/19/04 S.C. BAR, 14th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C.;
08/07/03 SCTLA, Annual Convention;
08/13/03 SUP CT, Judicial Opinion Writing;
08/21/03 SCCA, Judicial Conference;
01/25/02 S.C. BAR, Annual Criminal Law Update;
08/22/02 SCCA, Judicial Conference;
12/06/02 SCDAA, Annual Conference;
08/23/01 SCCA, Judicial Conference;
08/03/00 SCTLA, Annual Convention;
08/16/00 SCCA, Judicial Conference;
11/27/00- 12/01/00 National District Attorneys Association; National Advocacy Center Faculty Member; Course Number 01-01-AA1."
Judge Huff reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) S.C. Bar CLE 12/12/03
'Tips from the Bench IV'
This CLE provided an overview of recent cases of significant importance and the process of handling appellate matters in summary courts and circuit court.
(b) S.C. Bar CLE 6/18/04
'Hot Tips in Civil Practice for Magistrates'
This CLE focused on handling matters before the magistrate court and perfecting an appeal properly. It also addressed the distinctions and differences in criminal and civil matters.
(c) S.C. Bar CLE 11/19/04
'14th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina'
This CLE was a review and examination of the most recent court opinions and the impact upon criminal practice as to practice and procedure.
(d) National District Attorney Association 11/12 - 12/1/00
Course Number 01-01-AA1, 'Appellate Advocacy'
I participated as a faculty member for a week of training district attorneys from around the country. The emphasis of the course materials was appellate advocacy."
Judge Huff reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Huff did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Huff did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Huff has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Huff was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Huff reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Huff further reported that he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in November 1978 and served continuously until he resigned in 1996 to run for the Court of Appeals.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Huff appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Huff appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Huff was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since law school graduation:
"1976 - 1996:
Solo practice of law with an emphasis in domestic law, workers compensation, civil/tort/personal injury and limited real estate. In 1990 I began representing Aiken Electric Cooperative as their corporate counsel."
Judge Huff reported that on February 14, 1996, he was elected to Seat 8 on the South Carolina Court of Appeals and has served continuously since then.
Judge Huff provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) State v. Jones, 364 S.C. 51, 610 S.E.2d 846 (Ct. App. 2005).
(b) State v. Hutton, 358 S.C. 622, 595 S.E.2d 876 (Ct. App. 2004).
(c) Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. v. S.C. Department of Revenue, 358 S.C. 647, 595 S.E.2d 890 (Ct. App. 2004).
(d) State v. Hackett, 363 S.C. 177, 609 S.E.2d 553 (Ct. App. 2005).
(e) Cox v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 356 S.C. 468, 589 S.E.2d 766 (Ct. App. 2003)."
Judge Huff further reported he ran unsuccessfully for the Court of Appeals in 1993.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Huff's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Huff to be a "qualified and highly regarded judge."
Judge Huff is married to Patricia Dale Huff. He has one child.
Judge Huff reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) Aiken County Bar Association."
Judge Huff additionally reported, "I have served on the school board of the Curtis Baptist School for the last several years and most recently as Chairman and Vice Chairman. This school is a private Christian school with a student enrollment of approximately 189 for grades K5 through twelve. I also teach a Sunday school class for the age group 45 to 55 at Curtis Baptist Church. In addition, I teach a senior class at North Augusta High School concerning the South Carolina judicial system. The class is conducted once a semester for several days."
The Commission commented on Judge Huff's able service on the appellate court. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Court of Appeals.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Cothran meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Cothran was born on February 14, 1952. He is 53 years old and a resident of Manning, South Carolina. Mr. Cothran provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Cothran.
Mr. Cothran demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Cothran reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Cothran testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Cothran testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Cothran to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Cothran described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"August 23, 2005, Planning and Zoning;
July 2005, Association of Counties;
Sept.-Oct. 2004/2005, S.C. Solicitors Conferences."
Mr. Cothran reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"Auto Theft and Chop Shop Law;
Since I prosecuted the first Auto Theft and Chop Shop in South Carolina, I conducted a course (over a 5 year period) at the Criminal Justice Academy in regards to Auto Theft and Chop Shop Law."
Mr. Cothran reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cothran did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cothran did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Cothran has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Cothran was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Cothran reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Mr. Cothran further reported that he was appointed to the Election Commission in the late 1970's early 1980's and served as Chairman. He was also appointed as Assistant Solicitor in 1983 and has served in that capacity for the last twenty-two years.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Cothran appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Cothran appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Cothran was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since law school graduation:
"After my completion of the Bar examination in 1977, I began working with my father in his practice of law Cothran, Chandler & Cothran. In the early 80's, it became the firm of Cothran & Cothran with Ray E. Chandler, Jr. leaving the firm. Scott Robinson joined the firm after my father was elected Probate Judge for Clarendon County and it became the firm Cothran & Robinson. My practice consisted of Real Estate, Family, Civil and Criminal matters. I became the County attorney in 1979 and I have served as County attorney since that time. In 1983, I was appointed by Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Solicitor of the Third Circuit as the Assistant Solicitor for Clarendon County and have been a prosecuting attorney since that appointment."
Mr. Cothran further reported:
"Being an Assistant Solicitor, I have had experience in the courtroom for the past 23 years and have covered cases ranging from DUI 2nd offenses to Death Penalty cases. Being County attorney, I have also had experience in civil actions, most of which has been settled prior to trial.
Richard Coker v. Sullivan Auto & Fugua Industries, Inc., Case No.: 88-CP-14-111. I was associate counsel with the firm of Nelson Mullins to defend Snapper in an action brought where a 13 year old had his foot cut off. The case last two weeks and I took part in the closing arguments and the jury came back with a '0' verdict.
Roy Walker v. J. Reid Boylston III, Don M. Houck & Lawyers Title Insurance Company, Case No.: 01-CP-38-75. This case involved a Title Insurance Company. My client purchased several tracts of land and found out afterwards that one of the tracts of land did not exist. I brought an action against the Title Insurance Company and the sellers. We had a number of hearings and depositions before the case was finally settled."
Mr. Cothran reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: none;
(b) State: 11 weeks per year."
Mr. Cothran reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 5%;
(b) Criminal: 85%;
(c) Domestic: 10% prior to becoming full time county attorney."
Mr. Cothran reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 95%;
(b) Non-jury: 5%."
Mr. Cothran provided that he most often served as sole counsel, chief counsel, or associate counsel.
The following is Mr. Cothran's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) State v. Anthony Woods, Case No. 04-GS-14-35. Anthony Woods was charged with Burglary 1st Degree, Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st Degree, Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill in which he broke in on a woman who was 80 years old and raped and beat her. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. We are now in the process of seeking the Death Penalty on other charges.
(b) State v. Benjamin and Betty Mims, Case No. 96-GS-14-115. This case involved a husband and wife who were charged with Lynching in the 2nd Degree and Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature. They were white and accused of lynching a young black male. This case created huge racial tension and international coverage. They were convicted of Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature.
(c) State v. Robert Conyers, Case No.: 93-GS-14-278. Robert Conyers was a 16 year old serial killer who was charged with 2 counts of Murder, CSC, Burglary 1st and Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill. The State sought the Death Penalty. He pled guilty to the charges. The State tried the sentencing phase and he was sentenced before the Honorable Duane M. Shuler to the Death Penalty.
(d) State v. Bennie Charles Tanner, Case No. 87-GS-14-292. This case was a Felony DUI with Reese Joye as opposing counsel that lasted two to three weeks. The Defendant was found guilty and this case was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court.
(e) State v. Levan Witherspoon, Case No.: 94-GS-14-72. This case was a Death Penalty case where the Defendant along with two co-Defendants committed Armed Robbery at a local convenient store. The clerk was murdered in the process of the robbery. The jury process selection went for weeks and we could only seat 12 jurors. While asking the last question of the last witness, one of the jurors had a mental breakdown and a mistrial had to be declared because of the lack of jurors. The Defendant was tried the second time and was convicted of Armed Robbery."
The following is Mr. Cothran's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Ray Ward v. Clarendon County Planning Commission, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2004-CP-14-179, 7/12/04.
(b) Elizabeth Beidler Carton Boardman Trust, an Illinois Trust and Black Oak Hunting Club v. Eddie O. Alsbrooks, Court of Common Pleas Case No. 97-CP-14-537, 2/17/1999."
Mr. Cothran reported that he had never personally handled a criminal appeal.
Mr. Cothran reported he has held the following public offices:
"(a) I was appointed as Chairman to the Election Commission in the late 1970's early 1980's;
(b) I was appointed as Assistant Solicitor in 1983 and have served in that capacity since that time."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Cothran's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Cothran to be qualified for election for the Circuit Court bench.
Mr. Cothran is married to Deborah Jean Brakefield Cothran. He has two children and one stepchild.
Mr. Cothran reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) Clarendon County Bar Association."
Mr. Cothran provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) First Presbyterian Church at Manning, Clerk of the Session/Chairman Board of Deacons;
(b) Rotary Club."
Mr. Cothran additionally reported:
"Being with the Solicitor's Office for the last 23 years, I have either handled or been involved with every criminal proceeding in Clarendon County. I feel that my courtroom experience would serve me well in this capacity."
The Commission commented that Mr. Cothran would serve the Circuit Court bench well based on the compassion he evidences and his experience in private practice, as well as his background as a county attorney and as an assistant solicitor. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Geddings meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Geddings was born on February 1, 1963. He is 42 years old and a resident of Manning, South Carolina. Mr. Geddings provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988. Mr. Geddings also has been licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia since 1995.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Geddings.
Mr. Geddings demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Geddings reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Geddings testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Geddings testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Geddings to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions fell below the level of expectation generally met by applicants.
Mr. Geddings described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) 06/23/00, Child Safety Seminar II;
(b) 12/15/00, SCDSS Legal Training;
(c) 02/23/01, OGC Legal Seminar;
(d) 09/21/01, Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Practitioners;
(e) 12/15/01, Hot Tips to Keep you out of Hot Water;
(f) 02/15/02, S.C. Circuit Arbitration;
(g) 08/29/02, The Probate Process from start to finish;
(e) 12/03/03, 2003 GAL Certification;
(f) 12/19/03, 2003 - The Year that Was;
(g) 07/13/04, Title Insurance & The Order of Things;
(h) 09/17/04, Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE;
(i) 12/17/04, What it Was, What it Is and What it Will Be."
Mr. Geddings reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"(a) I have lectured on Risk Management and insurance liability issues at Western Carolina University, Clemson University, Furman University, College of Charleston and at the University of South Carolina.
(b) I have lectured on issues involving hazing at the University of South Carolina.
(c) I have also taught courses at Central Carolina Technical College in their paralegal program and in their criminal justice program. Courses included Torts, Legal Research, Office Management, Criminal Law, Ethics, Business Law, Domestic Relations, etc."
Mr. Geddings reported that he has published the following:
"(a) Like a Hog with a Wristwatch - A Guide to Technology in the Law Office, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Magazine, Fall 1995.
(b) Legally Speaking, a semi-weekly column in The Manning Times from 1989 through 1997 in which I discussed various topics of law of interest to a lay person."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Geddings did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Geddings did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Geddings has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Geddings was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Geddings reported that he was not listed in Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Geddings appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Geddings appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Geddings was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"After graduation from law school, I returned home to Manning, S.C. I worked with the firm of Coffey, Cooper, Chandler & DuRant, P.A. as an associate and handled mainly litigation matters. These included criminal cases, family court cases and tort claims from the Plaintiff's perspective. I also worked as a Public Defender. This was from my admission to the bar in 1988 until January of 1992.
In January of 1992, I opened my own office in Manning, South Carolina, as a sole practitioner. I continued to practice general law with a focus on litigation. I began to handle real estate matters as well. In 1993, I entered into an agreement with Rosalee Hix Davis, Esquire, in which she worked with me in my office. During that time, we also began to handle matters for the Department of Social Services in Williamsburg County on a contract basis. Ms. Davis left in 1995 and I hired Scott L. Robinson as an associate. While Scott Robinson worked for me, we continued to handle general law and expanded into bankruptcy matters. When Mr. Robinson left in 1997, we stopped handling bankruptcy law. In 1998, I entered into a contract with the Clarendon County Department of Social Services to provide legal services as a contract attorney in addition to my private practice. That contract expired in June of 2001.
I currently practice general law and handle mainly real estate, domestic relations and tort or contract litigation. I do a little bit of criminal work currently but it has become a small part of my practice since other attorneys in this area have started to specialize in it and I do not actively seek it."
Mr. Geddings further reported:
"In criminal matters, I handled a large number of cases up until several ago. As a public defender, I was assigned all types of cases from driving under the influence through burglary. I handled two death penalty cases, one as assistant counsel and one as lead counsel. Both cases ended in a guilty plea after plea negotiations. Most recently, my criminal cases have been of the traffic court variety. I also handled a case in Orangeburg County in which my client was charged with 'Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor' and 'Contributing to the Delinquency of a minor.' The Criminal Sexual Conduct has been dropped and we are still negotiating on the other charge.
In civil matters, I have more experience representing the Plaintiff than representing the Defendant. Most of my cases have been tort cases and most of those have involved automobile accidents. I have handled a few construction defect cases or debt collection cases. I prefer to negotiate with opposing counsel whenever possible and attempt to arrive at a result that will save our clients the expense of a trial. When negotiations are not possible, I endeavor to present the case as cleanly and clearly as possible. My training as an arbitrator and as a mediator has been helpful in resolving most matters through negotiation."
Mr. Geddings reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: none within the last five (5) years;
(b) State: At the Circuit Court level, I probably made 2 or 3 appearances a month within the last five (5) years. This does not include appearances in Magistrate's Court, Family Court or Probate Court."
Mr. Geddings reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 75% (including real estate);
(b) Criminal: 2%;
(c) Domestic: 23%."
Mr. Geddings reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 60% (including Magistrate Court);
(b) Non-jury: 40% (not including Domestic cases)."
Mr. Geddings provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Geddings' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Anthony Sharpe v. Case Produce Company, 336 S.C. 154, 519 S.E.2d 102 (1999). I served as trial and appellant counsel for Case Produce Company. The Commission and lower courts had basically held that an employee who claimed to have been injured at work was almost presumed to have been injured at work. The Supreme Court agreed with our position that the burden of proof in proving any injury occurred at work must rest with the claimant and not the employer.
(b) State v. Marcus Joseph. This was a Circuit Court death penalty case in which I was assistant counsel. I believe it was significant because it involved many issues of contract murder, interstate jurisdiction and extradition, the death penalty and negotiations both with the prosecution and with the client. I learned a great deal in this case so it has personal significance to me.
(c) Gladys Haskins v. Lynn Ray Tidwell. This case was litigated in the Family Court. I represented the Defendant. The case is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals. The case involves the burden of proof in a common law marriage case. It also involves the question of when a common law marriage ripens from a relationship that was initially void due to one of the parties being married, if it ever ripens. The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and we have appealed. I believe it is significant because since South Carolina is one of the few states with common law marriage, it is necessary to develop better guidelines for when a relationship changes into a marriage.
(d) Tom Judy v. Breann Lashell Wall. This is a typical automobile accident case in which I represent the Plaintiff. The reason I list it as significant is because it is over 5 years old and still pending. Mr. Judy was injured while he was working and the Workers Compensation case is still unresolved and pending. While the Workers Compensation claim remains pending, the civil action for the automobile accident cannot be resolved. This is significant to me because it shows me how justice delayed can become justice denied. My ability to help Mr. Judy has been stymied by the other factors and in my meeting with him, it reminds me that all of our actions impact real people with real problems.
(e) Tracy E. Howard v. John Doe. Tracy Howard is a young lady about to be married who was in an automobile accident caused by an unknown driver. She is now a paraplegic. I represent her and have assisted her with the automobile insurance and with the Medicaid system. This case is significant because her determination to carry on and her positive attitude give me inspiration. Someone who had everything going for her and who is suddenly faced with stupendous medical bills and the loss of use of her legs but who still maintains a positive attitude is someone I want to remember. Maybe it is not a socially significant case to others, but it is one I am proud to be involved and it is significant to me."
The following is Mr. Geddings' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Anthony Sharpe v. Case Produce Company, 336 S.C. 154, 519 S.E.2d 102 (1999).
(b) Anthony Sharpe v. Case Produce Company, 329 S.C. 534, 495 S.E.2d 790 (Ct.App.1997).
(c) Gladys Haskins v. Lynn Ray Tidwell, Case No. 2004-DR-14-161, on appeal to Court of Appeals."
Mr. Geddings reported that he had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Mr. Geddings reported that he had served as Special Referee within Clarendon County.
Mr. Geddings stated: "I was an unsuccessful candidate for Clarendon County Council in 1994. I lost in the run-off election to W.J. Frierson."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Geddings' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Geddings to be qualified for election for the Circuit Court bench.
Mr. Geddings is married to Jane Ulmer Geddings. He has two children.
Mr. Geddings reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) Georgia Bar Association."
Mr. Geddings provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Sigma Chi Fraternity, Grand Praetor, Grand Trustee, Robert McNair Outstanding Alumnus Award for USC, 2004;
(b) New Covenant Presbyterian Church, Deacon and Chairman of the Diaconate;
(c) Manning Rotary Club, Paul Harris Fellow."
Mr. Geddings further provided:
"I am a Court Certified Mediator and a Court Certified Arbitrator. I have mediated numerous cases through Court Ordered Mediation in Lexington County and in Florence County as well as mediation in other counties where the mediation was voluntary. I believe my training and experience as a mediator and arbitrator will help me as a circuit court judge.
For several years, I served on the South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee and drafted several opinions on ethics issues. I believe that maintaining the quality and integrity of the profession is important in gaining the public's respect and in deserving that same respect.
I have completed several weeks of training in a leadership program and mentoring program. I have found the information and skills I learned to be of great use in my law practice and in my dealings with others. I believe those same skills would help me as a circuit court judge. My great-grandfather was Charlton DuRant, for whom the Charlton DuRant Distinguished Public Service Award was named, set a very high standard and I hear from my mother and aunts about him a great deal. He believed in fairness, kindness, courtesy, and in treating everyone with dignity. I admire him and have strived to follow the path he set. He was an attorney in Manning and was always willing to just be there and listen when people had problems. Now, more than 50 years later, I have some of his licenses hanging in my office to remind me of my duty to my fellow man and my duty to be a good citizen.
Above all, I believe this is a job I am qualified to do, excited to do and would benefit from doing. I hope that I am given an opportunity to serve."
The Commission commented on Mr. Geddings' empathy for the parties he represented in civil matters and noted his sense of fairness would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found Mr. Geddings qualified and nominated him for the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. James meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. James was born on June 2, 1960. He is 45 years old and a resident of Sumter, South Carolina. Mr. James provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. James.
Mr. James demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. James reported that he has made $87.69 in campaign expenditures for postage, printing, and stationery.
Mr. James testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. James testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. James to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. James described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Orientation for Attorneys to Assist Disciplinary Counsel, 12/12/02;
(b) Auto Ins Law and Accident Litigation, 12/13/02;
(c) An Optimal View of 2002, 12/20/02;
(d) South Carolina Farm Bureau Claims Conference, 3/15/02;
(e) Handling Medical Negligence, 3/14/02;
(f) Litigation Under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, 8/15/03;
(g) Admissibility of Evidence & Expert Testimony, 3/21/03;
(h) Law Enforcement Defense Counsel, 10/3/03;
(i) Discovery in S.C. Bad Faith Litigation, 5/20/04;
(j) Employee Handbooks, 5/26/04;
(k) Revised Lawyer's Oath, 10/6/04;
(l) Character and Res Gestae Evidence, 12/22/04;
(m) Attorney ECF Training, 6/2/05;
(n) Auto Insurance law & Accident Litigation In SC, 12/6/00;
(o) Attorneys to Assist Disciplinary Counsel, 12/7/00;
(p) Insurance Reserve Fund Law Enforcement Seminar, 10/13/00;
(q) Federal Civil Practice, 12/18/01;
(r) Tips from the Bench II, 12/14/01;
(s) IRF Law Enforcement, 10/5/01."
Mr. James reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"During the 1980s, I taught law courses in the paralegal program at Central Carolina Technical College in Sumter. I cannot recall each course I taught, but they included Real Estate, Trusts and Estates, Business Law, and Torts."
Mr. James reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. James did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. James did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. James has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. James was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. James reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. James appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. James appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. James was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"In 1985, I became an associate with Richardson, James, and Player in Sumter. I believe I was made a partner in or about 1990. In 1997, one partner withdrew, and the firm name changed to Richardson and James. In 2000, this firm merged with Lee, Wilson, Erter, and Holler and became Lee, Erter, Wilson, James, Holler, and Smith, LLC.
My practice has generally centered upon civil litigation, mostly on the defense side. I have in the last few years represented more and more plaintiffs in the civil courts, primarily in cases involving relatively substantial personal injury. Since 2000, I have also represented many law enforcement officers and entities in cases in which the plaintiffs seek relief for alleged violation of civil rights under 42 USC Section 1983. These cases are typically litigated in federal court. I have also handled numerous cases involving issues of possibly fraudulent insurance claims and bad faith claims against insurance companies. I have tried numerous cases to verdict before circuit court juries in South Carolina, and have tried several non-jury cases to verdict.
I have handled numerous residential real estate transactions, but not as routinely in the last eight or nine years, mainly because of time constraints. I have represented numerous business/corporate clients and have handled several estates in the probate court. As for criminal matters, my firm was on retainer for Sumter County until 1997, and our representation included advising the Sheriff from time to time. Therefore, an active criminal practice was virtually impossible. Since 1997, I have chosen not to handle criminal cases because of my heavy civil caseload. I now refer potential criminal clients to two of my partners who do have criminal practices. I am sure I will be able to overcome my relative lack of experience on the criminal side, because of the commonality in the Rules of Evidence and because I catch on relatively quickly. I think my overall trial experience will give me a comfort level in that regard.
I have also handled zoning matters before the local governing/planning bodies and before the Circuit Court. I engaged in some limited defense work involving workers' compensation in the late 1990s and have represented several claimants as well."
Mr. James further stated: "I would be able to compensate for my overall lack of criminal practice experience with simple hard work and study. As noted above, my overall trial experience would assist me in recognizing evidentiary issues similar to those involved in civil cases, as I have a working knowledge of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Common sense is also an invaluable tool.
During the last five years, my practice has become more concentrated upon defense of civil rights claims under 42 USC Section 1983 in federal court and state court, insurance litigation involving potentially fraudulent insurance claims, and has continued to include personal injury litigation on the plaintiff and defense side. I have also been involved in more advanced representation of corporate clients and in business litigation."
Mr. James reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: I have been lead counsel in many federal cases in the last five years, probably 30% or more of my overall case load. Most of these cases are disposed of by summary judgment, which in federal court is typically accomplished without oral argument, and not through live 'court appearance;'
(b) State: 60-70% of overall caseload. My court appearances have been very frequent."
Mr. James reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 98%;
(b) Criminal: 1%;
(c) Domestic: 1%."
Mr. James reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 85%;
(b) Non-jury: 15%."
Mr. James provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. James' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"This question also inquires into 'procedural histor[ies]' of 'any cases handled over the past five years.' A small few of these are as follows:
(a) I am currently defending a local corporation in a case in which the plaintiff, a minority shareholder, alleges oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct in violation of state statute. The plaintiff is demanding the court to require the corporation to buy her shares at fair market value. After numerous depositions, the matter was tried nonjury and a verdict rendered in the corporation's favor. The plaintiff has appealed and the case is pending in the Court of Appeals. Since the case is still pending I would prefer not to identify the parties.
(b) Heyward v. Christmas, 357 S.C. 202, 593 S.E.2d 141 (2004). Plaintiff sued for violation of his civil rights at the hand of our client, a state trooper. The case went to trial in Sumter County and the trial court directed a verdict in the trooper's favor, finding as a matter of law that his conduct was 'objectively reasonable' under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, finding the trial court was correct.
(c) Charles v. Hill, et al., 03-CP-21-603 (Florence County). I defended a Florence County assistant public defender, an assistant solicitor, and a Florence County sheriff's investigator in a case in which the plaintiff alleged prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, and malicious prosecution in relation to his conviction for several criminal offenses. Pertinent issues involved service of process by certified mail, relief from default, prosecutorial immunity, and related defenses. All defendants were dismissed on motion for summary judgment.
(d) I am currently representing three workers' compensation claimants in cases against a local industry, the basis of the claims being occupational disease. Co-counsel and I have been working on these cases since 1998. The single commissioner has found in the first claimant's favor and we are awaiting a hearing before the full commission. I would prefer not to reference the names of the parties. Disputed issues include those pertaining to 'last injurious exposure' and medical causation.
(e) Adams v. Clarendon School District One, Clarendon County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff was master of ceremonies at a school function in a brand new school gymnasium and sustained electric shock while holding a microphone. Issues included standard for admissibility of expert testimony on issue of standard of care in installation of electrical systems, assumption of the risk (incident occurred before this defense was subsumed into comparative negligence), and causal connection between the shock and the plaintiff's bodily injury claim. The trial court excluded much of the expert's testimony regarding the electrical system installation, and the jury returned a defense verdict.
In addition, the following are some of my appellate cases that I consider 'significant.'
(a) Heyward v. Christmas, (see above). Significant because the Supreme Court recognized the standard of 'objective reasonableness,' which is to be considered by courts in a manner much different from negligence/recklessness.
(b) Tiller v. National Health Care, 334 S.C. 333, 513 S.E.2d 843 (1999). Supreme Court upheld decision that 'medically complex' workers' compensation claim was compensable even in the absence of medical testimony establishing causation. Unfortunately, I was on the losing end.
(c) Lawson v. Sumter County Sheriff's Office et al., 339 S.C. 133, 528 S.E.2d 86 (2000). Defendant settled a section 1983 civil rights claim, and plaintiff then attempted to recover attorneys' fees under 42 USC Section 1988. Court of Appeals held that the release signed in exchange for settlement payment precluded such a claim, and further observed that plaintiff's counsel had concealed from the trial court (which had approved the settlement) the plaintiff's alleged assignment of such fees to her plaintiff's counsel.
(d) Charles v. Hill, et al., see discussion above.
(e) Adams v. Clarendon School District One."
The following is Mr. James' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Universal Benefits v. James McKinney, 349 S.C. 179, 561 S.E.2d 659 (Ct. App. 2002). Decided March 25, 2002.
(b) Moore v. Sumter County Council, 300 S.C. 270, 387 S.E.2d 455 (1990). Decided January 8, 1990.
(c) Heyward v. Christmas, 357 S.C. 202, 593 S.E.2d 141 (2004). Decided March 4, 2004.
(d) Tiller v. National Health Care, 334 S.C. 333, 513 S.E.2d 843 (1999). Decided April 7, 1999.
(e) Lawson v. Sumter County Sheriff's Office, et al., 339 S.C. 133, 528 S.E.2d 86 (Ct. App. 2000). Decided Feb 7, 2000."
Mr. James reported that he had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Mr. James reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"I was a candidate for circuit court at-large seat 8 in 1999. I believe Judge Goode holds this seat. There were at least six applicants, and I was not one of the three selected to go forward to the actual election."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. James' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. James to be qualified for election to the Circuit Court bench.
Mr. James is married to Dena Owen James. He has two children.
Mr. James reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Sumter County Bar Association, 1985 to present; secretary 1991-1993;
(b) South Carolina Bar Association, 1985 to present;
(c) South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association, 1985 to present; Executive Committee 1994-97."
Mr. James provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Sumter Area Citadel Club;
(b) Wilson Hall School Board of Trustees, 1999-present;
(c) Cotillion Club, president 2000;
(d) Sumter Assembly;
(e) Citadel Brigadier Club;
(f) Sunset Country Club, Board of Directors 1994-96 and 1999-2001."
Mr. James further reported the following: "Please note that one of my law partners, G. Murrell Smith, Jr., is a member of the S.C. House of Representatives. I have, of course, not asked him for his pledge, nor have I asked him to seek pledges on my behalf and will not do so until the law permits."
The Commission noted that Mr. James has extensive civil trial experience and is well respected by the local bar. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Baxley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Baxley was born on August 24, 1956. He is 49 years old and a resident of Hartsville, South Carolina. Judge Baxley provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
Staff received affidavits opposing Judge Baxley's re-election from Jara Gobbi, Mildred Browder-Hughes, George Douglas Powell, John V. Whiteside, Jr., and Patricia A. Whiteside.
Ms. Gobbi's affidavit complained that Judge Baxley acted inappropriately and unethically in his conduct toward her and incorrectly denied her rights to fair and unbiased hearings. Ms. Gobbi claimed that before her first hearing Judge Baxley inappropriately ordered her into his chambers to discuss her involvement in the foreclosure lawsuit. She claimed that Judge Baxley encouraged her not to pursue her defenses and counterclaims. Angela Robbins, with the Clerk of Court's office, was present for the meeting with Ms. Gobbi. Ms. Robbins filed an affidavit which was made a part of the public hearing record stating that Judge Baxley acted appropriately in explaining the possible ramifications of the situation to Ms. Gobbi and did not attempt to persuade her to take a course of action. Furthermore, Ms. Robbins stated in her affidavit that all parties consented for Ms. Gobbi to meet with Judge Baxley in his chambers. Judge Baxley testified that this situation was the only instance where he took a litigant back in chambers but it was at the beginning of his service as a judge, it was done with the consent of all the parties, and he no longer continues this practice. Ms. Gobbi also claimed that Judge Baxley incorrectly denied her motions and prohibited her from filing any further motions. Ms. Gobbi stated that when she next filed a motion, Judge Baxley found her in contempt of court and sentenced her to 90 days in prison. Judge Baxley testified at the public hearing that he was justified in his rulings and action against Ms. Gobbi, because she continued to file non-meritorious motions despite his directions to the contrary.
The other four affidavits opposing Judge Baxley's re-election relate to his handling of the Teresa Hanna murder trial in August 2005. Ms. Hanna, a well-known employee of the city of Johnsonville, was murdered one morning outside of her home while she was leaving for work. Ms. Hanna's brother-in-law was charged with the murder and her husband was charged with conspiracy to commit the murder. The nine-day trial involved numerous testimonies and evidentiary issues. At the close of the prosecution's case, Judge Baxley issued a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that there was no direct evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence to send the case to a jury. The affidavits filed against Judge Baxley claimed that he showed bias in favor of the defendants' attorneys in his rulings and conduct of the trial. However, an initial review of a draft of the trial transcript by staff indicated that an approximate proportion of objections were sustained or overruled for both the prosecution and the defense.
At the public hearing, Judge Baxley adamantly denied that he had any special relationship with defense attorney Morgan Martin who represented one of the defendants at trial or evidenced any other impartiality in the courtroom. In Judge Baxley's interview with staff and at the public hearing, he correctly stated the rule for granting a directed verdict in a criminal case. Judge Baxley also testified that he was misunderstood when he discussed the ability to appeal his decision. He testified that he was referring to his earlier ruling not to allow evidence into the case, and that the prosecution had an opportunity to appeal the case from that decision. He also correctly stated that a directed verdict for a defendant can be appealed in limited circumstances where fraud is involved. The Commission found that given the tremendous publicity surrounding the case and the heightened scrutiny of a murder trial, Judge Baxley should have been more careful in his language at trial. They noted that Judge Baxley clearly knew the circumstances of how the matter could be appealed, but he should communicate these circumstances better in the future. During his testimony at the public hearing, Judge Baxley agreed that he needed to choose his words more carefully when addressing the litigants, jury, witnesses, and attorneys.
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Baxley.
Judge Baxley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Baxley reported that he spent a minimal amount in campaign expenditures for postage.
Judge Baxley testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Baxley testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Baxley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Baxley described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) All Annual Civil and Criminal Law Updates at S.C. Bar Convention (2000-2005);
(b) All Annual Circuit Judges' Conference Programs; Various subjects (2000-2005);
(c) All Annual Judiciary Conference Programs; Various subjects (2000-2005);
(d) Nat. Judicial College General Jurisdiction Courses (2001);
(e) Nat. Judicial College Death Penalty Course (2005).
I have satisfied all continuing legal education requirements for 2005 and have earned an additional 30 carryover hours for 2006. I also have completed six (6) course credits towards a judicial masters degree through the National Judicial College."
Judge Baxley reported that he has conducted seminars on mental health issues at the Solicitors' and Public Defenders' annual conventions; has spoken to the circuit judges on mental health issues at annual conferences in 2004 and 2005; lectured on ethics and the case of In Re: Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar at the annual convention of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; administered the new attorney's oath and discussed ethics and professionalism at Bar meetings and/or group conferences; and has participated as a discussion panel member before several legal groups on various issues.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Baxley did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Baxley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Baxley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Baxley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Baxley reported that his rating is not listed by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Baxley served as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, elected from District 65 (portions of Chesterfield, Darlington, Kershaw, Lee, and Sumter counties) from 1986 through 1998.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Baxley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Baxley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Baxley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
He reported his legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:
"I was employed with only one firm during my career as a practicing lawyer, Driggers, Baxley & Moyd of Hartsville, South Carolina. This partnership was a small town, general practice firm. For the first four years (1982-1986), my practice involved numerous areas of law including real estate, probate, workers compensation, domestic, criminal, corporate and business, and civil claims. During this time, I participated as a referral attorney for the local legal services office, for two years I served as chairman of the Darlington County Public Defender Corporation, and for three years served as prosecutor for the City of McBee, South Carolina municipal court.
It was my privilege to be elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1986, which significantly changed my practice. Time constraints required that I withdraw from the Family and General Sessions Courts, and all other practice areas were curtailed in favor of a civil practice. The nature of my civil practice also changed, switching from general administration of tort claims to handling matters in litigation. This further developed into litigation referrals from other attorneys of cases that involved claims against governmental entities, unusual liability theories, and/or atypical damages issues."
Judge Baxley further stated:
"I have served as a Circuit Court judge continuously since June 25, 2000, having been elected by the General Assembly to the Fourth Judicial Circuit residential Seat 2 position on February 8, 2000. This is our state's trial court of general jurisdiction."
Judge Baxley provided the following list of five of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) State v. Sabrina Boan. (Georgetown, 00-GS-22-739). Homicide by Child Abuse; Trial date January 24, 2001. This case involved the murder of four-year-old Brandon Boan, who was beaten to death by his mother and/or her boyfriend and placed face down in a bathtub with two-year-old twins to create the appearance of a drowning. This case is chosen because the trial received significant press coverage, and the first week long trial resulted in a hung jury. The case was immediately called by the solicitor for a second trial the following week, which confronted the Court with significant difficulty in obtaining a second jury that had not formed an opinion on the case from press reports. Jurors were individually questioned at length about whether press reports would influence them. The case involved multiple contested issues including juror removal for cause, the prejudicial versus probative impact of autopsy and crime scene photos, third party guilt, admissibility of defendant's statements to police, jury view of the crime scene, chain of forensic evidence questions, and others. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to forty years in prison. This conviction was affirmed by Court of Appeals unpublished opinion 2002-UP-735.
(b) South Carolina Department of Mental Health Forensic Evaluation Cases. Statewide Jurisdiction commencing September 1, 2003.
By Order of the Chief Justice, I was given oversight authority for operation of the forensic evaluation services of the Department of Mental Health with instructions to reduce and eliminate significant backlogs for criminal defendants awaiting evaluation for competency and criminal responsibility. S.C. Code Ann. Section 44-23-410 allows fifteen (15) days for a competency examination to be conducted and an additional five (5) days for a written report to be returned to the Court. At the commencement of the oversight period, some defendants were waiting in local jails as long as six months for an evaluation. That period is now down to an average of thirty (30) days, and the Department will be required to be in full statutory compliance by April 1, 2006. In the process of reducing the backlogs, new and more detailed evaluation commitment orders have been developed, new procedures for evaluation scheduling have been employed, and safeguards put in place to eliminate non-meritorious requests for evaluation that may be attempted for delay, strategy, or some other tactic. The faster evaluation process has resulted in significant savings to county detention centers statewide and a more timely disposition of cases where the mental status of the defendant is at issue.
(c) Waldrop v. City of Greenville and Commissioners of Public Works. (Greenville, 02-CP-23-8070). Trial date October 10, 2003. This civil claim involved the right of public access to lands owned by public entities. The defendants are owners of a large tract of pristine property that surrounds a watershed that provides drinking water for most of Greenville County. Previously no public access was allowed to the tract. The Defendants then entered into a use easement that allows hiker access to the mountainous property, connecting the Palmetto and Appalachian Trails. Plaintiffs were neighboring landowners who sought to use a previous conservation easement granted by Defendants to the Nature Conservancy to prevent public access to Defendants' property. Judgment was granted for the Defendants on the basis that the Plaintiffs had no standing to assert the Nature Conservancy easement as a bar to prevent public access; further, reasonable use by the public of this beautiful and publicly held property is appropriate. The decision was not appealed.
(d) Tucker v. Honda of South Carolina and Pee Dee Electric Cooperative. (Florence, 98-CP-21-1729). Trial date March 9, 2005. This civil claim for conspiracy and abuse of process arose out of a condemnation action involving Roseville, Plaintiff's Florence County plantation home built in the early 1800's. The property was one of various parcels of land proposed to be combined and offered to Honda of North America for the construction of a manufacturing plant that would bring over one thousand jobs to Florence County. All surrounding landowners agreed to sell their property for the project but plaintiff refused. Representatives of Defendant Pee Dee Cooperative attempted on several occasions to persuade Plaintiff to sell his property, but were refused. Pee Dee initiated a condemnation action to obtain the right to survey Plaintiff's property, as Plaintiff had denied all access to the premises, and thereafter dismissed the action. Shortly thereafter, not wanting to be involved in a lawsuit, Honda reversed its decision to locate in South Carolina because of the land acquisition problem. Public opinion turned sharply against the Plaintiff, who then sued both defendants. In the meantime, state and local officials went to Ohio and convinced Honda management to come back to Florence County and consider another tract of land in the Timmonsville area, which ultimately was accepted and the manufacturing plant built. Plaintiff's lawsuit was dismissed in favor of the Defendants because Pee Dee's condemnation claim was lawful, and there was no evidence that the Defendants conspired to injure Plaintiff or his reputation. The decision was not appealed.
(e) State of South Carolina v. David and Darry Hanna. (Florence, 04-GS-21-1078). Murder. Trial date August 8, 2005. Two brothers were charged and tried jointly for the murder of David Hanna's wife, the town administrator for the city of Johnsonville, South Carolina. The case was entirely circumstantial, and presentation of the state's case took nine (9) days. The state's theory of prosecution was that Defendant Darry Hanna shot David Hanna's wife at the direction and request of David Hanna. Because it involved the murder of a public official, allegedly killed by family members, the case was significantly reported in the press. The trial was hotly contested and involved multiple issues including evidence admissible against one defendant but not the other, third party guilt, exclusion/inclusion of inconclusive forensic evidence, proof thresholds in purely circumstantial cases, discovery disputes and allegations of failure to disclose witnesses, and many others. At the close of the state's case, I dismissed all charges in favor of the Defendants because of a total failure of proof against Defendant Darry Hanna, and all other indicted charges were founded upon Darry Hanna being convicted of murder (conspiracy to commit murder, accessory before and after the fact of murder). Great controversy erupted over the dismissal of the charges; however, the law is clear-evidence that casts a mere suspicion and does not go to actual proof of murder is not sufficient to support a conviction, and if there is nothing more than suspicion at the conclusion of the state's case, the Court has a responsibility to dismiss the charges. See State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 450 (1984). The decision was not appealed."
Judge Baxley stated: "Although not traditional 'employment,' I am a fifty (50%) percent partner in a business venture that owns and rents residential property in the Hartsville community. In this capacity, my job responsibilities are sporadic and differentiated, but include landscaping, potential property location and acquisition, and some repairs and renovation. Day to day management of the properties is the responsibility of the other partner, who is employed full time in this capacity and in a similar capacity with other properties that he owns with other individuals."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Baxley's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Baxley to be qualified for re-election to the Circuit Court bench.
Judge Baxley is not married. He does not have children.
Judge Baxley reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Darlington County Bar Association;
(b) South Carolina Bar Association."
Judge Baxley provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) YMCA;
(b) Butler Heritage Foundation-former member, Board of Directors;
(c) Renofest sponsor (local bluegrass annual festival);
(d) Hartsville Community Players sponsor;
(e) Hartsville Civic Chorale sponsor;
(f) Hartsville Museum sponsor;
(g) Hartsville Community Concerts sponsor;
(h) Brookgreen Gardens-member, President's Council."
Judge Baxley additionally reported:
"Thank you for the opportunity to seek re-election to the South Carolina judiciary. I am humbled by the confidence shown by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and the South Carolina General Assembly in allowing me to serve a previous term in this position."
The Commission commented that Judge Baxley is noted as a fair and courteous judge who goes out of his way to explain the judicial process to the jury, litigants, and witnesses. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Manning meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Manning was born on December 7, 1950. He is 55 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Manning provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Manning.
Judge Manning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Manning reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Manning testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Manning testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Manning to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Manning described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) 01-21-00 15th Annual Criminal Law Update;
(b) 05-10-00 Circuit Judges Conference;
(c) 08-03-00 2000 SCTLA Convention;
(d) 08-16-00 Annual Judicial Conference;
(e) 01-26-01 16th Criminal Law Update;
(f) 05-09-01 Circuit Judges Conference;
(g) 07-02-01 Circuit Judges Orientation;
(h) 08-23-01 Annual Judicial Conference;
(i) 01-25-02 17th Criminal Law Update;
(j) 05-08-02 Annual Judicial Conference;
(k) 07-08-02 Circuit Judges Conference;
(l) 08-01-02 2002 SCTLA Convention;
(m) 08-22-02 Annual Judicial Conference;
(n) 11-08-02 12th Criminal Practice in S.C.;
(o) 01-24-03 Civil Law Update;
(p) 01-24-03 18th Annual Criminal Law Update;
(q) 05-07-03 Circuit Judges Conference;
(r) 08-07-03 2003 SCTLA Convention;
(s) 08-21-03 Annual Judicial Conference;
(t) 11-21-03 13th Criminal Practice in S.C.;
(u) 01-23-04 2nd Annual Civil Law Update;
(v) 01-23-04 19th Annual Criminal Law Update;
(w) 01-23-04 2nd Annual Civil Law Update;
(x) 08-19-04 Judicial Conference;
(y) 08-19-04 Judicial Oath of Office;
(z) 12-10-04 Seminar for Chief Judges;
(aa) 05/11-13-05 Circuit Judges Conference."
Judge Manning reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"09-17-97 Group Facilitator in General Jurisdiction Course, Reno, NV;
09-13-98 Group Facilitator in Essential Skills Course, Reno, NV;
1998 Presiding Judge for Judge Court;
1998-2005 Annual participant at S.C. Judicial Conferences (Civil Junkyard and New Developments);
11-01-02 Ethics and Proverbs Seminar, Presenter;
11-08-02 12th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C., Presenter;
11-21-03 13th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C., Presenter;
12-12-03 S.C. Local Government Attorneys' Institute, Presenter;
01-23-04 19th Criminal Law Update, Presenter."
Judge Manning reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Manning did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Manning did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Manning has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Manning was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Manning reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Manning reported that he has also held the following public offices:
"S.C. Assistant Attorney General, Appointed 1983-1990;
Bar Examiner, 1992, Appointed."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Manning appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Manning appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Manning was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Judge Manning provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Attorney and Counselor at Law. Dillon County - private practice;
1979-1983:
Part-time Instructor, Florence-Darlington Technical College.
1983-1989:
S.C. Assistant Attorney General.
1988-1989:
Chief of Prosecutions.
1989-1994:
Partner, Walker, Morgan & Manning, Lexington, S.C."
Judge Manning reported that he was unsuccessful in his candidacy for the Court of Appeals, Seat 1, in May 2004.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Manning's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Manning to be a qualified and well regarded judge.
Judge Manning is divorced. He has three children.
Judge Manning reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) S.C. Bar Association (1977-Present);
(b) S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Secretary (Chairman 1987-1988);
(c) S.C. Trial Lawyers Assn., National Minority Delegate;
(d) S.C. Bar Board of Law Examiners (1992);
(e) S.C. Bar Special Committee on the Judiciary (1991-1992);
(f) S.C. Bar Commission on Judicial Conduct;
(g) S.C. Sentencing Guidelines Commission (1996-Present);
(h) Hearing Masters, Rules on Judicial Discipline & Standards (1994-1998);
(i) United States Court of Appeals;
(j) United States District Court, District of South Carolina."
Judge Manning provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Richland County Bar Civility Award (2002);
(b) S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Portrait (2005).
Judge Manning also stated:
"Since 1993, I have signed a Master Talent Fee Agreement annually to do Basketball Color for the University of South Carolina Basketball Team."
The Commission inquired at the public hearing and determined that Judge Manning treats litigants, witnesses, and attorneys in a "straight-forward" manner. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Couch since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Couch meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Couch was born on February 1, 1950. He is 55 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Couch provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Couch.
Judge Couch demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Couch reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Couch reported he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Couch stated that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Couch to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Couch described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"02/06/2004, 2004 Annual Meeting, 2.00;
05/05/2004, 2004 S.C. Circuit Judges, 7.25;
07/12/2004, 2004 Orientation School for 17.75;
08/19/2004, Judicial Conference, 7.25;
08/19/2004, Judicial Oath of Office, 1.00;
12/10/2004, Seminar for Chief Judges, 5.50;
01/31/2003, Annual Statewide Meeting, 2.75;
08/07/2003, The Civil Jury in America, 1.50;
08/07/2003, 2003 Annual Convention, 12.00;
08/21/2003, Judicial Conference, 7.50;
10/17/2003, Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar, 6.00;
02/15/2002, Masters-in-Equity, 3.75;
08/01/2002, Annual Convention, 13.50;
10/11/2002, Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar, 6.00;
01/05/2001, Statewide Meeting, 4.25;
10/12/2001, Master-In-Equity Bench/Bar, 6.00;
01/05/2001, Statewide Meeting, 4.25;
10/13/2000, Business Torts/Master-in-Equity, 6.00;
12/15/2000, Top Ten Things You Need to Know, 6.00;
12/16/2000, Ethics, Productivity & Stress Mgt., 3.00."
Judge Couch reported that he taught Business Law at Spartanburg Methodist College in the late 1970's, and assisted his law partner, Matthew Henderson, as a lecturer in Business Law at Wofford College in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Judge Couch further reported that he was the coordinator and moderator of the Master-in-Equity Bench and Bar Conference sponsored by the South Carolina Bar held in October of 2002, and a speaker at the Master-in-Equity Bench and Bar Conference in 2003.
Judge Couch reported that during his service as President of the South Carolina School Board Association he had articles published on school related topics.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Couch did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Couch did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Couch has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Couch was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Couch reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Couch appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Couch appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Couch was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since law school graduation.
"1975-1985:
Associate and Partner, Henderson, Lister, Brandt and Couch, general practice of law including practice in all courts, state and federal, and real estate practice and some worker's compensation.
1985-1989:
Partner, Lister and Couch, general practice in primarily civil litigation, and estate practice, corporations, family law and probate.
1989-1997:
Partner, Lister, Couch & Courtney, general practice in civil litigation, law, real estate, and probate.
1997-2004:
Master-in-Equity for Spartanburg County."
Judge Couch provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Brown v. Overnite Transportation Company. Unpublished 99-UP-521;
(b) Barnes v. Globe-Vest, Inc., et al. Unpublished #99-UP-010;
(c) McGarity, Gilmore, & Forrester, Architects v. Spartanburg Enterprises. Unpublished #01-UP-400;
(d) Brown v. Allstate Insurance Company, 344 S.C. 21, 542 S.E.2d 723 (S.C. 2001);
(e) Ballenger v. City of Inman, 336 S.C. 126, 518 S.E.2d 824 (Ct. App. 1999)."
Judge Couch reported that he has held the following prior judicial positions:
"7/82 to 6/86
Town Judge, Town of Cowpens, handled cases brought by the Town Police Department, misdemeanor traffic and criminal matters, appointed.
07/1997 to 02/2004
Master-in-Equity for Spartanburg County, handled all types of civil non-jury cases at the circuit court level, elected and appointed.
07/1997 to 02/2004
Appointed as special circuit judge and handled the non-jury docket for Cherokee County and Spartanburg County.
2004
Appointed and served as Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
02/2004 to present
Elected to Circuit Court Seat 2 of the Seventh Judicial Circuit."
Judge Couch further reported he held the following public office:
"I was elected on four occasions as a School Board Member for Spartanburg County School District 6 from March 1977 to June 1997."
Judge Couch was unsuccessful in his candidacy for the S.C. House of Representatives in 1988.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Couch's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Couch to be "a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Couch is married to Joy Ayers Couch. He has three children.
Judge Couch reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Association, no offices;
(b) Spartanburg County Bar Association, no offices."
Judge Couch provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"(a) Spartanburg Rotary Club."
The Commission noted that Judge Couch has made a smooth transition from serving as a Master-in-Equity to Circuit Court Judge. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Johnson since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Johnson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Johnson was born on August 16, 1951. He is 54 years old and a resident of Clinton, South Carolina. Judge Johnson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Johnson.
Judge Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Johnson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Johnson stated that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Johnson stated that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Johnson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2000:
January 21, 2000, Annual Criminal Law Update;
May 10, 2000, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
August 3, 2000, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention;
August 16, 2000, Annual Judicial Conference.
2001:
January 26, 2001, Criminal Law Update;
May 9, 2001, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
July 2, 2001, Orientation School for New Judges;
August 23, 2001, Annual Judicial Conference.
2002:
January 25, 2002, Criminal Law Update;
May 8, 2002, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
July 8, 2002, Orientation School for New Judges;
August 1, 2002, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention;
August 22, 2002, Annual Judicial Conference.
2003:
May 7, 2003, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
July 7, 2003, Orientation School for New Judges;
August 21, 2003, Annual Judicial Conference.
2004:
January 23, 2004, Criminal Law Update;
January 23, 2004, Civil Law Update;
May 5, 2004, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
July, 2004, Orientation School for New Judges;
August 19, 2004, Judicial Oath of Office;
August 19, 2004, Annual Judicial Conference.
2005:
January, 2005, Criminal Law Update;
January, 2005, Civil Law Update;
May 11-13, 2005, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
July 11, 2005, Orientation School for New Judges."
Judge Johnson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) Speaker, New Judges School 1996, Ethics;
(b) Speaker, New Judges School 1999, Common Pleas;
(c) Speaker, New Judges School 2000-present, Inherent Powers of Court and Ethics;
(d) Speaker, Bridge the Gap 1999-2005, Essential Tips for Practice in Circuit Courts."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Johnson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Johnson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Johnson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Johnson was elected to the S.C. House of Representatives in November 1984, House District 15, and served in that capacity until March 1992.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Johnson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Johnson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Johnson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Judge Johnson provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"August 1976-November 1981:
Assistant Attorney General, State of S.C. Consumer fraud; representation of various state agencies; civil litigation, including tort claims and highway condemnation throughout the state.
November 1981-February 1983:
Sole practice, Clinton, S.C. General practice, both civil and criminal, in all state courts.
February 1983-December 1988:
Partner in firm of Blalock & Johnson, Clinton, S.C. General practice in all state and federal courts.
December 1988-March 1992:
Sole practice, Clinton, S.C. General practice.
March 1992-present:
Circuit Court Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit."
Judge Johnson reported the following prior judicial positions he has held:
"1983-1984:
Appointed Assistant City Recorder by City Council for Clinton, S.C. Jurisdiction for city ordinances and traffic tickets $200/30 days.
March 1992-present:
Elected Circuit Court Judge by S.C. General Assembly to fill unexpired term of Honorable James E. Moore. Trial court of general jurisdiction, civil and criminal and term expires 6/30/06."
Judge Johnson provided the following list of his five most significant orders:
"(a) State v. Patrick, 457 S.E.2d 632, 318 S.C. 352 (1995);
(b) Taylor v. Medenica, et al., 479 S.E.2d 35, 324 S.C. 200 (1996) Acting Associate Justice;
(c) Strickland v. Galloway, 560 S.E.2d 448, 348 S.C. 644 (2002);
(d) Shelton v. Oscar Mayer, et al. 481 S.E.2d 706, 325 S.C. 248 (1997);
(e) State v. Lopez, 574 S.E.2d 210, 352 S.C. 373 (2002)."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Johnson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Johnson to be very qualified for the position he is seeking.
Judge Johnson is married to Jean Katherine Mangum Johnson. He has four children.
Judge Johnson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Laurens County Bar Association, President, Jan.-May 1991; V-Pres. 1990;
(b) S.C. Bar Association, 1976-present;
(c) Judicial Conduct Commission, 1994-present; Chairman, 2000-present;
(d) Circuit Judges Advisory Committee, 1995-present."
Judge Johnson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"(a) Elder, First Presbyterian Church."
The Commission noted that Judge Johnson is designated to handle some of the most difficult cases and he can be trusted to manage these cases fairly. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Pieper meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Pieper was born on October 8, 1961. He is 45 years old and a resident of Hanahan, South Carolina. Judge Pieper provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Pieper.
Judge Pieper demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Pieper reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Pieper testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Pieper testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Pieper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Pieper described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Circuit Judges' Meeting in May of each year;
(b) Judicial Conference in August of each year;
(c) S.C. Bar Criminal law update each year in January;
(d) S.C. Bar's Tips from the Bench which I put on for the bar in December of each year. This program offers practice tips for all levels of court in our state.
I generally have in excess of 30 additional CLE hours to carry forward each year."
Judge Pieper reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"I spoke at a CLE for Masters-in-Equity on civil procedure. I currently put together an annual program for the S.C. Bar, which covers practice pointers for all the various courts in the State. It has been a very popular program for the Bar during the last few years."
Judge Pieper reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Pieper did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Pieper did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Pieper has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Pieper was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Pieper reported that his rating is not listed in Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Pieper appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Pieper appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Pieper was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
He reported the following legal experience since graduation from law school:
"March 1985 - August 1985: Lawclerk, U.S. District Court, for United States Magistrate Judge Robert Carr.
I was responsible for researching the law and writing reports and recommendations for disposition of various cases such as employment and civil rights cases, social security, habeas corpus and other prisoner litigation, and all other civil cases referred to the office. Also, I attended and prepared for all criminal proceedings before Judge Carr. In August, I left to attend N.Y.U. For a few weeks after I returned from N.Y.U., I worked as an attorney with a law firm handling foreclosures, estate planning and civil matters.
Fall 1986 - Fall 1988: Senior Lawclerk, U.S. District Court for Judge Sol Blatt, Jr.
I worked on a wide variety of civil and criminal matters involving issues of statutory and constitutional law, including habeas corpus review of decisions of the S.C. Supreme Court. Essentially, I received training and exposure to all aspects of trial, including complex litigation.
August 1988 - December 1990: During part of this time, I was associated with a lawyer under the name of Pieper & Stokes (Mark); six months thereafter, we associated with another lawyer (Kinard) but chose to operate as separate entities. Character of practice - real estate, probate, estate planning and general civil matters.
Summer 1990 - Summer 1993; Summer 1993 - Summer 1995: Returned to U.S. District Court at request of Judge Blatt, because of my class action experience, to assist with the complicated bankruptcy class action for Patriots Point. After the case was completed, I was asked to stay in a career position. [The first six months of this period overlaps with my private practice time above because I was technically 'of counsel' to the Court]. From Summer 1993 - Summer 1995, I assisted the court one day a week since I was appointed Master-in-Equity.
April 1989 - October 1991: Part-time Berkeley County Magistrate (chronologically - this overlaps with the federal court position as I worked at night). Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate.
June 1993 - June 1996: Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge.
Duties - I presided over all circuit court nonjury trials and proceedings referred to my office for disposition; in addition, as Special Circuit Judge, I presided over most pretrial proceedings and motions in civil jury and nonjury cases; minor settlements; civil or criminal appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as judicial review of state agency cases such as workers' compensation appeals, and grand jury proceedings. I gained a wide variety of circuit court judicial experience.
June 1996 - present: Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit.
Preside over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. I have also been assigned as an Acting Supreme Court Justice."
Judge Pieper reported the following prior judicial positions held:
"April 1989 - October 1991: Part-time Berkeley County Magistrate; appointed position; civil jurisdiction of $2500 and limited criminal jurisdiction depending on the statute involved. Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate.
June 1993 - June 1996: Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge; appointed position. Duties - I presided over all circuit court non-jury trials and proceedings referred to my office for disposition; in addition, as Special Circuit Judge, I presided over most pretrial proceedings and motions in civil jury and non-jury cases; minor settlements; civil or criminal appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as judicial review of state agency cases such as workers' compensation appeals, and grand jury proceedings. I gained a wide variety of circuit court judicial experience.
June 1996 - present: Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit; elected by the General Assembly. Preside over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. I have served several times as Chief Judge and have been assigned as an Acting Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court."
Judge Pieper provided the following list of his most significant orders:
"(a) Stewart v. Richland Memorial Hospital, 567 S.E.2d 510 (S.C. App. 2002). This case involved a negligence action against a public hospital alleging a nurse breached the standard of care. The case focused on the applicable standard under the Tort Claims Act as well as the applicability of the Act's mandatory caps. Affirmed.
(b) Duke Power v. Public Service Comm. of S.C., 541 S.E.2d 250 (2001). This was an interesting case regarding a utility's right to serve a particular territory. Affirmed.
(c) State v. Harvin, 547 S.E.2d 497 (2001); murder/armed robbery case. This case involved a novel issue of the applicability of New York law to a statement given by the defendant while detained in that state on an unrelated charge. Affirmed.
(d) State v. Dennis, 523 S.E.2d 173 (1999); murder trial. The case dealt with interesting issues pertaining to severance as well as the use of an excited utterance by a co-defendant and whether the use of that statement violated the confrontation clause. Affirmed.
(e) State v. Cannon, 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999); drug case. Originally, the Court of Appeals reversed the court's decision allowing the introduction into evidence of certain drugs that were seized incident to a warrantless arrest. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and held that the trial court's ruling was correct. The case involved a problematic provision in the criminal domestic violence act."
Judge Pieper reported that from January 2005 through May 2005 he was an Adjunct Professor of Criminal Law at the Charleston School of Law.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Pieper's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Pieper to meet the established criteria of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and to be qualified for re-election.
Judge Pieper is not married. He has no children.
Judge Pieper reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) S.C. Bar Association;
(b) Honorary Member, Charleston and Berkeley County Bar Associations."
Judge Pieper reported the following regarding civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"Because of my judicial position, I have avoided these activities so that I would not run afoul of the judicial code prohibition on judges in regard to fundraising activities. I am a member of my church and participate in church activities unrelated to fundraising."
Judge Pieper further stated:
"I have always been innovative, diligent and imaginative. I am also technology oriented in the operation of my office. I feel these qualities are very useful as the judiciary strives to adjust to increasing caseloads. I feel that I have been raised in the courtroom, having spent much of my career time working for, or presiding over court.
As a circuit judge over the last nine years, I have been exposed to a wide range of matters, including hundreds of appeals from the magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as from administrative agencies. This experience is invaluable as it relates to the disposition of matters before the court. In addition, I have been assigned as an Acting Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court.
Furthermore, as a judge, I have presided over hundreds of civil and criminal jury trials, as well as numerous non-jury proceedings. Most lawyers in the course of their entire career are never exposed to this type of experience. I believe this extensive experience presiding over various trials and appeals, along with the broad range of knowledge that I have attained serving on various courts in our state would allow me to continue to contribute to the Court (and to continue to grow and refine my judicial position) if the Legislature gives me the opportunity to continue serving our state.
I have a reputation for preparing in advance and drafting most of my own orders as opposed to merely relying on orders submitted by counsel. My extensive legal writing experience at both the state and federal levels would assist me in performing the duties of a judge. However, I also realize that I should be open to comments, suggestions and criticism in order to better myself as a judge.
I also have a reputation of requiring everyone to play by the rules and to dot all the 'i''s and to cross all the 't''s in order to assure that everyone receives a fair day in court. I have attached as an exhibit a story from one of the Beaufort newspapers referencing one of my high profile trials.
I am greatly humbled by the honor of being considered for such an important position."
The Commission inquired at the public hearing and determined that Judge Pieper is a highly respected Circuit Court judge whose legal mind is an asset to the bench. They found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Macaulay since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Macaulay meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Macaulay was born on January 31, 1942. He is 63 years old and a resident of West Union, South Carolina. Judge Macaulay provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Macaulay.
Judge Macaulay demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Macaulay reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Macaulay reported that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Macaulay stated that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Macaulay to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Macaulay described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Annually, I have attended seminars sponsored and/or approved by the South Carolina Bar Continuing Education Division and Supreme Court and each year carried forward the maximum thirty (30) hours.
2000:
January 21, 2000, 15th Annual Criminal Law Update;
May 10, 2000, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
June 16, 2000, Trial & Appellate Advocacy Section;
August 3, 2000, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention;
August 16, 2000, Annual Judicial Conference;
September 29, 2000, Tort Law Update.
2001:
January 26, 2001, Criminal Law Update;
May 9, 2001, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
August 23, 2001, Annual Judicial Conference.
2002:
January 25, 2002, 17th Annual Criminal Law Update;
August 1, 2002, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention;
August 22, 2002, Annual Judicial Conference.
2003:
January 24, 2003, 18th Annual Criminal Law Update.
May 7, 2003, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
July 7, 2003, Orientation School;
August 21, 2003, Annual Judicial Conference.
2004:
January 23, 2004, 2nd Annual Civil Law Update;
January 23, 2004, 19th Annual Criminal Law Update;
May 5, 2004, S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
August 19, 2004, Judicial Oath of Office;
August 19, 2004, Annual Judicial Conference."
Judge Macaulay reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) Torts Update, Recent Decisions 2000, U.S.C. Law School, S.C. Bar C.L.E. Division.
(b) Ethics, Critical Conflicts, S.C. Defense Trial Attorneys' Association, 2003 Annual Meeting.
(c) Criminal Law Section, Circuit Judges Advisory Committee's New Judges School, 2004 and 2005."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Macaulay did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Macaulay did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Macaulay has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Macaulay was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Macaulay reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Macaulay reported the following military service:
"1964-1975 (Vietnam 1966-67), United States Army, Medical Service Corps, Captain, (USAR), retired. Honorable Discharge 4 February 1975."
Judge Macaulay provided the following account of public offices he has held:
"Appointed to the State Board of Education, representing the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Anderson and Oconee Counties, 1979-1980.
Elected to the South Carolina Senate: District One, Seat Three, representing Abbeville, Anderson, Oconee and Pickens Counties, 1981-1984; District One, representing Anderson, Oconee and Pickens Counties, 1985-1992; and District One, representing Oconee and Pickens Counties, 1993-1994."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Macaulay appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Macaulay appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Macaulay was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1970-1972: Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, civil and criminal trials and appeals, and counsel for various State agencies: Department of Social Services, Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, and Highways and Public Transportation Department;
1973-1994: Private practice, civil and criminal trials and appeals, including torts and contracts, representing individual and corporate plaintiffs and defendants, eminent domain, property, domestic, estate and municipal, representing the cities of Seneca and Walhalla.
Miley and Macaulay, 1973-1976;
Miley, Macaulay and Boggs, 1976-1980;
Miley, Macaulay, Day and Agnew, PA, 1981-1984;
Miley, Macaulay and Cain, PA, 1986-1988;
Miley and Macaulay, PA, 1988-1994."
Judge Macaulay reported that he was unsuccessful in the June 1970 Democratic Primary for nomination to be a candidate for the South Carolina House of Representatives from Richland County.
Judge Macaulay was elected on 1994 to the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2.
Judge Macaulay provided the following list of five of his most significant orders:
"(a) State v. Cabrera-Pena, 361 S.C. 372, 605 S.E.2d 522 (2004), author as A.A.J.
(b) Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 599 S.E.2d 114 (2004), author as A.A.J.
(c) Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 534, 599 S.E.2d 124 (2004), author as A.A.J.
(d) Haselden v. Davis, 341 S.C. 486, 534 S.E.2d 295 (Ct. App. 2000), affirmed, 353 S.C. 481, 579 S.E.2d 293 (2003), affirmed.
(e) Clark v. Cantrell, 332 S.C. 433, 504 S.E.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1998), affirmed, 339 S.C. 369, 529 S.E.2d 528 (2000), affirmed as modified."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Macaulay's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Macaulay to be "a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Macaulay is married to Maria Locke Boineau Macaulay. He has two children.
Judge Macaulay reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) Oconee County Bar Association, President, 1980;
(c) American Bar Association."
Judge Macaulay provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Walhalla Presbyterian Church, Elder and Sunday School Teacher;
(b) Tri-State Trout Club;
(c) Society of the Cincinnati of the State of South Carolina;
(d) Huguenot Society of South Carolina;
(e) St. Andrew's Societies of Columbia and Upper South Carolina;
(f) Society of the High Hills of Santee;
(g) South Caroliniana Society;
(h) South Carolina Historical Society;
(i) Tarantella Club of Columbia;
(j) Oconee Assembly;
(k) Columbia Cotillion Club."
Judge Macaulay further provided:
"I was actively engaged in the practice of law from 1970 to 1994, representing citizens and the State, individual and corporate plaintiffs and defendants, in civil and criminal matters, in trials and appeals, with cases tried, or ultimate disposition made on appeal, in all levels of courts of our State and the United States. More importantly, my life has been one of representation of people and public service requiring an appreciation for, and the maintenance of, mutual respect among individuals, the public and their institutions, regardless of the matters and parties involved.
Since June of 1994, I have presided over terms of Circuit Court, jury and non-jury, civil and criminal, to include capital cases, trials and appeals, throughout our State and, on occasion, been privileged to serve as an acting associate justice on our Supreme Court. I now serve on the Chief Justice's Circuit Judges Advisory Committee that conducts the school for new judges as well as receives and makes recommendations for improvements in our judicial system."
The Commission commented that Judge Macaulay is a very knowledgeable judge serving on the Circuit Court bench as he is often assigned more difficult legal issues over which to preside. They found Judge Macaulay qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Keesley since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Keesley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Keesley was born on May 10, 1953. He is 52 years old and a resident of Edgefield, South Carolina. Judge Keesley provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Keesley.
Judge Keesley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Keesley reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Keesley reported that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Keesley stated that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Keesley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Keesley described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
2000 S.C. Association of Circuit Judges Spring Conference;
10/01 S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Seminar;
08/01 Annual Judicial Training;
2001 S.C. Association of Circuit Judges Spring Conference;
01/02 S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Seminar;
08/02 Annual Judicial Training;
2002 S.C. Association of Circuit Judges Spring Conference;
01/03 S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Seminar;
08/03 Annual Judicial Training;
01/04 S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Seminar;
01/04 S.C. Bar, Civil Law Seminar;
08/04 Annual Judicial Training;
01/05 S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Seminar;
01/05 S.C. Bar, Civil Law Seminar;
08/05 Annual Judicial Training;
2005 S.C. Association of Circuit Judges Spring Conference.
"Note: I have attended short periods of other CLE courses and have completed and participated in extensive Drug Court training through the National Drug Court Institute, for which I have not claimed CLE credit."
Judge Keesley reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"I have been a lecturer at Continuing Legal Education Courses administered through the S.C. Bar on topics including evidence at the USC Law School. I was a lecturer at the S.C. Solicitors Convention and the S.C. Public Defenders Association. I participated in training at the S.C. Clerks of Court meeting. I have lectured at the S.C. Department of Corrections and the S.C. Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. I am on the faculty of the National Drug Court Institute and have conducted training in San Diego, California; Pensacola, Florida; Columbia, Missouri; and, Buffalo, New York. I lectured at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals meeting in Miami and at several State and local meetings of Drug Court associations. I gave training at the Annual Meeting of the South Carolina judiciary in Columbia, and at the courses given to Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes. I have lectured for Pre-trial Intervention, Leadership Columbia, at a CLE program given at the Medical College of South Carolina in Charleston, and at training conferences for the South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services (DAODAS)."
Judge Keesley reported that he has published the following:
"Drug Courts, South Carolina Lawyer, July/August 1988 issue."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Keesley did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Keesley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Keesley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Keesley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Keesley reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Keesley reported he held the following public office:
Member of the S.C. House of Representatives, 1989 - 1991, elected.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Keesley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Keesley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Keesley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since law school graduation:
1978 - 1980:
Associate with John F. Byrd, Jr., Esquire, Edgefield, S.C.; General practice;
1980 - 1983:
Associate with J. Roy Berry, Esquire, Johnston, S.C.; General practice;
1983 - 1991:
Sole practitioner, Johnston, S.C.; General practice;
From 1983-87:
Part-Time Public Defender;
From 1983-89:
Part-Time Town Attorney for Johnston, S.C.;
From 1988-1989:
Part-Time Assistant Solicitor, 11th Judicial Circuit;
1991 - present: Resident Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat #1.
Judge Keesley reported that he has held the following prior judicial positions:
"Resident Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, 1991-present, elected by S.C. General Assembly, Court of general jurisdiction."
Judge Keesley provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) S.C. Tax Comm. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., et al., 316 S.C. 163, 447 S.E.2d 843 (S.C. 1994). Held that documents were available for release under Freedom of Information Act requests and the impact of the defendants' actions on the disclosure of information.
(b) Orangeburg Sausage Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., et al., 316 S.C. 450, 450 S.E.2d 66 (Ct. App. 1994). Multi-million-dollar verdict on a bad faith refusal to pay Insurance benefits for damages arising from Hurricane Hugo. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which denied cert.
(c) Calcaterra v. City of Columbia, 315 S.C. 196, 432 S.E.2d 498 (S.C. 1993). This case deals with water rates charged by a municipality.
(d) State v. Michael Rian Torrence, 322 S.C. 475, 473 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 1996). Death penalty case in which the Supreme Court designated me to determine whether the defendant was competent to waive his rights to appeal and proceed to be executed.
(e) Johnson v. Catoe, 548 S.E.2d 587, 345 S.C. 389 (S.C. 2001). Death penalty case in which the Supreme Court stayed the execution of Mr. Johnson and designated me to determine if a witness who claimed responsibility for the underlying murder was competent and credible."
Judge Keesley further reported he "was defeated in a special election primary for the S.C. House of Representatives around 1987."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Keesley's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Keesley to be "a qualified and highly-regarded judge."
Judge Keesley is married to Linda Fay Black Keesley. He has one child.
Judge Keesley reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) S.C. Bar, 1978 - present;
(b) S.C. Association of Circuit Judges, Secretary, 1992 - present;
(c) Edgefield County Bar Association, President (1985); Treasurer for numerous years;
(d) Tri-County Bar Association (Edgefield, McCormick, Saluda Counties), 1978 - present;
(e) S.C. Association of Drug Court Professionals, Past President 1997-99."
Judge Keesley provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Concordia Masonic Lodge #50, Edgefield, S.C. [no offices held];
(b) Edgefield United Methodist Church, Chairman of Administrative Board & Lay Leader."
Judge Keesley additionally reported: "I believe that 14 years of experience is helpful in performing the requirements of this position."
The Commission noted the innovation of Judge Keesley in starting the first drug court in Lexington County and commented that he is considered a fair judge in his courtroom. They found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Allen meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Allen was born on April 13, 1951. He is 54 years old and a resident of West Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Allen provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Allen.
Judge Allen demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Allen reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Allen testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Allen testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Allen to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Allen described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"01/21/00 S.C. Bar, Mid-Year, Family Law Section;
05/03/00 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/03/00 SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/16/00 Judicial Conference;
12/01/00 Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;
01/26/01 S.C. Bar, Mid-Year Family Law Section;
05/03/01 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/02/01 SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/23/01 Judicial Conference;
12/07/01 Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;
01/25/02 S.C. Bar, Mid-Year Family Law Section;
05/01/02 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/01/02 SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/22/02 Judicial Conference;
12/02 Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;
01/24/03 S.C. Bar, Mid-Year Family Law Section;
04/25/03 Speaker, 'Cool Tips' Family Law CLE;
04/30/03 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/08/03 SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/21/03 Judicial Conference;
12/05/03 Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;
01/23/04 S.C. Bar, Mid-Year Family Law Section;
04/28/04 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/19/04 Judicial Conference;
12/03/04 Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;
12/10/04 Seminar for Chief Judges;
01/21/05 S.C. Bar, Mid-Year Family Law Section;
04/27/05 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/04/05 SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/25/05 Judicial Conference."
Judge Allen reported that he has taught the following law-related course:
"Cool Tips" Family Law CLE at the USC Law School on 4/25/03.
Judge Allen reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Allen did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Allen did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Allen has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Allen was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Allen reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Allen further reported that he has held the following public offices:
"(a) 1981-1984 Lexington County Council Appointee to Lexington Medical Center Board of Trustees;
(b) 1988-1991 Governor's Appointee to Joint Legislature Committee on Solid Waste;
(c) 1990-1995 Governor's Appointee to Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Worker's Compensation Law."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Allen appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Allen appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Allen was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
He provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1976-1978: Greenville County Public Defender's Office General Sessions & Family Court Juvenile.
1978-1998: Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Allen, Taylor, & O'Day, P.A. General Trial Practice with emphasis on Civil & Family Court.
1998-Present: Family Court Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1"
Judge Allen further provided:
"I have the broad experience needed by a Circuit Judge. Immediately after law school, I worked for 2 years, first as an assistant and then was promoted to the position of Deputy Public Defender in Greenville County. These years were exclusively devoted to criminal cases. I tried dozens of cases in General Sessions of all types including murder.
Thereafter, I went into private practice from 1978-1998 with the West Columbia law firm of Kirkland, Taylor, Wilson, Moore, and Allen. My practice was all types of litigation, particularly complex torts such as medical malpractice and products liability. I primarily represented plaintiffs, but I did some defense work, as well. This was in both Common Pleas and the Federal system. I maintained a substantial practice of Worker's Compensation, Family Court, and continued some criminal defense in General Sessions Court.
As you can see below, I handled appeals in all these areas, as well. During those 20 years, I served three stints as a Municipal Judge for the City of West Columbia where I presided over criminal jury trials, signed warrants, and set bonds.
Now in my 8th year as a Family Court Judge for the 11th Circuit, I have heard thousands of domestic cases, child support contempt cases, DSS cases, and juvenile criminal cases in these years on the Bench.
Therefore, because I have substantial experience in all fields I am immediately prepared and qualified to hear any matter that would come before the Circuit Court."
Judge Allen reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to his election to the bench as follows:
"(a) Federal: several times per year;
(b) State: several times per week."
Judge Allen reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to his election to the bench as follows:
"(a) Civil: 60%;
(b) Criminal: 5%;
(c) Domestic: 35%."
Judge Allen reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to his election to the bench as follows:
"(a) Jury: 50%;
(b) Non-jury: 50%."
Judge Allen provided that he most often served as sole counsel prior to his election to the Family Court bench.
The following is Judge Allen's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. v. Entrepreneur, Inc., 354 S.E.2d 921, 292 S.C. 97. My client, the plaintiff, successfully appealed a directed verdict by the trial Judge. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial Court and ruled for the plaintiff. This is a frequently cited case for the doctrine of apparent authority.
(b) Accordini v. Security Cent., Inc., 320 S.E.2d 713, 283 S.C. 16. My client, the plaintiff, successfully appealed the trial Court's sustaining of the defendant's demurrer. The case was reversed in favor of the plaintiff by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. This was an 'important question of novel impression in South Carolina'. It establishes law in the area of foreseeability and proximate cause.
(c) Delk v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Memorandum Opinion No. 91-MO-102. The Delk case went up on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court at the same time as South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mooneyham, 405 S.E. 2d 306 ___ S.C.___ (1991). The position of my client, plaintiff, was affirmed by the Mooneyham decision. These cases established via declaratory judgment motorist's entitlement to stack underinsured motorist coverage.
(d) Snipes v. McAndrew, 313 S.E.2d 294, 280 S.C. 320. My client, a school principal, was a companion case with Shaw v. McAndrew, et al., 313 S.E.2d 294, 280 S.C. 320, in which the plaintiff was represented by current Supreme Court Chief Justice Toal. The case defined the parameters of the Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act. The litigation analyzed the Act with respect to Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(e) Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 513 S.E.2d 358 (S.C. 1999). I represented the plaintiffs in their successful TPR and adoption of children following DSS intervention. This case settled numerous questions in the TPR statute and is often cited by our Courts."
The following is Judge Allen's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Lacy W. Brigman III v. Amaryllis P. Brigman Ford, A. Lewis Powell and Mrs. Doris Powell, South Carolina Supreme Court, December 30, 1982, Memorandum Opinion 82-MO-390.
(b) Tethel Strother v. Columbia OB/GYN Associates, P.A. and John Hooker, Jr. M.D., Opinion No. 95-UP-098 (S.C. Ct. App. April 13, 1995).
(c) South Carolina Dept. of Social Services v. Wheaton, South Carolina Supreme Court, 474 S.E.2d 156 (1996).
(d) Benton v. Roger C. Peace Hosp., 313 S.C. 520, 443 S.E.2d 537 (S.C. 1994).
(e) Estate of Covington by Montgomery v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp., 304 S.C. 436, 405 S.E.2d 393 (S.C. May 06, 1991)."
The following is Judge Allen's account of two criminal appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) The State of S.C. v. Robert Earl Mauldin, Memorandum opinion No. 78-11;
(b) The State of S.C. v. Kirk R. Leonard and Richard E. Harrison, Jr., 287 S.C. 462, 339 S.E.2d 159 (1986)."
Judge Allen reported the following regarding public offices he has held:
"Elected by City of West Columbia City Council to three stints as Association Municipal Judge as follows with jurisdiction limited to traffic and minor criminal offenses:
April 3, 1979 - March 8, 1982;
May 7, 1991 - March 3, 1992;
September 15, 1994 - April 10, 1995.
Elected by S.C. Legislature to S.C. Family Court to two stints as follows:
July 1, 1998 - June 30, 2004;
July 1, 2004 - present."
Judge Allen provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
"Since taking office on 7/1/98, I have had only four decisions appealed. They are listed below.
(a) SCDSS v. Lakeisha Holley, et al. (Unpublished Opinion No. 2000-UP-136).
(b) Matthew Henry Wilson v. Linda Scruggs Walker, (Opinion No. 3172, filed 5/22/00).
(c) Mary Lynn Moak f/k/a Mary Lynn Cloud v Jack Ellsworth Cloud, (Unpublished Opinion No. 2001-UP-419).
(d) William Earl Timmons v. Gail B. Timmons, (Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-608)."
Judge Allen further reported that in 1980 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination to South Carolina House of Representatives from Lexington County.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Allen's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Allen to be a "very qualified and highly regarded judge, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."
Judge Allen is married to Jane Inman Allen. He has two children.
Judge Allen reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Honorary Member of Lexington County Bar Association, President 1986;
(b) S.C. Bar Association;
(c) S.C. Family Court Judges Association."
Judge Allen provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Mt. Hebron United Methodist Church. I have served as adult and youth Sunday school teacher, MYF leader, Lay Leader, and Chairman or member of numerous church committees. I presently serve as chairman of Church Council, which is the chief administrative body of the church;
(b) Quail Hollow Community Association;
(c) Brookland-Cayce High School Foundation."
The Commission commented that Judge Allen has demonstrated his even judicial temperament on the Family Court bench and would be an asset to the Circuit Court. They found him qualified and nominated him to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Smith meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. Smith was born on April 9, 1969. She is 36 years old and a resident of Lexington, South Carolina. Ms. Smith provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1995.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Smith reported that she has made $151.59 in campaign expenditures for postage and stationery.
Ms. Smith testified she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Smith testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. Smith to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions fell below the level of expectation generally met by applicants.
Ms. Smith described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) '15th Annual Criminal Law Practice in South Carolina' (4.0 hrs) (11/18/05);
(b) 'ABC's of Effective and Ethical Practice' (SCWLA) (10/14/05);
(c) 'Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation 2005 Underwriting Seminar' (08/16/05);
(d) 'Attorney Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Training' (06/16/05);
(e) 'Emotional Intelligence in the Law Firm: How We Feel Differently' (04/08/05);
(f) 'Introduction to South Carolina Economic Development Law and Procedures' (02/11/05);
(g) 'Government Law Section-Legal Issues Affecting Government Law' (01/22/05);
(h) 'Alternative Dispute Resolution Section-Setting the Table: An Overview of Mandatory Court ADR in South Carolina' (01/21/05);
(i) 'Real Estate Practice Section-Updates and Pitfalls of Real Estate Practice' (01/21/05);
(j) 'Solo & Small Firm Section with Law Office Technology Committee' (01/20/05);
(k) 'How Not To Commit Malpractice (with the Help of Your Computer)' & "The Ethics Oath Seminar' (12/08/04);
(l) 'Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation 2004 Underwriting Seminar' (09/15/04);
(m) 'Electronic Courtrooms' United States District Court (03/23/04);
(n) 'How to Grow Your Practice' (03/03/04);
(o) 'Proposed RESPA Changes & The Unauthorized Practice of Law' (02/18/04);
(p) '2nd Annual Civil Law Update' (01/23/04);
(q) 'Civil Court Mediation Certification Training Program' (10/11/03-10/12/03);
(r) 'Government Law Section' (01/24/03);
(s) 'Technology Committee-Introduction Online Judicial Tools & How Judges Use Technology in S.C.' (01/23/03);
(t) 'S.C. Boundary Law and Landowner Disputes' (11/22/02);
(u) 'Negotiating the Legal Rights of Breast Cancer Patients' (10/25/02);
(v) 'Law of Encumbrance: Easements and Rights of Way' (07/19/2002);
(w) 'They Didn't Teach Me Everything I Need to Know to Practice in Law School' (SCWLA) (04/26/02);
(x) 'Real Estate Practices Section-A Smorgas Bord of Real Estate Issues' (01/26/02);
(y) '2001 S.C. Trial Lawyer Convention' (08/02/001);
(z) 'Civil Court Mediation Certification Training Program' (06/27/01-06/30/01);
(aa) 'Litigating the Class Action Lawsuit in South Carolina' (09/14/00);
(bb) 'Government Law Section' (06/16/00);
(cc) 'Advanced Directives in South Carolina: Understanding Healthcare Powers of Attorney and Living Wills' (04/07/00);
(dd) 'Client Intake and Fee' (03/23/00);
(ee) 'Tips from the Bench' (02/25//00);
(ff) 'Ethics at Trial' (11/08/99).
Other related continuing education (non-CLE):
(*) 'Managing Problem Employees & Difficult Supervisory Situations' (02/24/05);
(*) 'A Seat at the Table' Co-Sponsored by The South Carolina Commission on Women, Women in Philanthropy, and The Columbia College Alliance for Women (05/03/05)."
Ms. Smith reported the following regarding law-related courses she has taught:
"I co-lead a day-long seminar entitled 'Practical Legal Research and Analysis for the Paralegal in South Carolina,' on September 18, 1998."
Ms. Smith reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Smith did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Smith did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Smith has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Smith was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Smith reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Ms. Smith appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Ms. Smith appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Smith was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1995.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Bouknight, Nicholson, Davis, Frawley & Anderson, LLP, Law Clerk
(Aug. 1995-Dec. 1995)
I graduated from law school in May of 1995 and did not work that summer as I prepared for the Bar Exam. After taking the Bar Exam at the end of July of 1995, I planned to work as a Judicial Law Clerk for The Honorable William P. Keesley in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court. However, Judge Keesley decided to allow his prior Judicial Law Clerk the opportunity to work until December of 1995. Therefore, I worked as a law clerk at the Bouknight Law Firm for five months until the Judicial Law Clerk position became available.
During this time at the Bouknight Law Firm, I performed legal research, drafted pleadings, discovery and legal memoranda for matters in civil litigation, performed real estate title examinations and worked on the real estate tax sales for Lexington County.
The Honorable William P. Keesley, Judicial Law Clerk
(Jan. 1996-July 1997)
As a Judicial Law Clerk, I performed legal research and assisted Judge Keesley in Common Pleas and General Sessions Court. I assisted in the Roster meetings and contacted attorneys concerning Court appearances. In General Sessions, I researched the possible penalties for the offenses before the Court and assisted with orders. In Common Pleas Non-jury, I took notes at the hearings for the Judge, assisted with orders, and kept track of matters taken under advisement. Judge Keesley allowed me the opportunity of sitting with him on the bench for most of the time he was in the Courtroom. It was during these 19 months of working for Judge Keesley that I first had the thought of one day becoming a Circuit Court Judge myself.
During the time I served as Judge Keesley's Law Clerk, he established the first Drug Court in Lexington County. I worked closely with Judge Keesley on this project and attended the Drug Court sessions to take notes for the Judge and assist with any organizational issues. I enjoyed working with the Drug Court and followed its success with great interest.
Nicholson, Davis, Frawley, Anderson, & Ayer, LLC, Associate
(Aug. 1997-Dec. 2000)
The Nicholson, Davis Law Firm is a well established law firm in Lexington County with a high reputation for integrity and quality legal work. As an associate with the law firm, I had the privilege of working under the supervision of senior attorneys with many years of experience in litigation and real estate matters. My experience as an associate attorney included representation of Plaintiffs and Defendants as co-counsel in Common Pleas Jury and Non-jury trials, researching and drafting of motions, arguing motions, preparing discovery, taking depositions, performing real estate closings and working on real estate tax sales for Lexington County.
Over the years, my practice grew from working primarily on senior attorney's cases to handling cases primarily on my own. However, in most cases in litigation, I still prefer the practice of having co-counsel within the firm for the benefit of collaboration.
Nicholson, Davis, Frawley, Anderson, & Ayer, LLC, Partner
(Jan. 2001-Present)
As a partner with the Nicholson, Davis Law Firm, my practice primarily includes civil litigation, real estate and County Government law. I represent individuals, small and large companies, and governmental entities, both as Plaintiffs and Defendants in civil litigation. The areas of civil litigation generally include negligence, gross negligence, construction defects, breach of contract, breach of warranties, real estate title disputes, personal injury, premises liability, easements, takings, adverse possession, collections and inverse condemnation.
The real estate law I practice includes drafting contracts and leases, negotiating terms, litigating property disputes, and performing residential and commercial real estate closings. I am a title insurance agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and Investors Title Insurance Company and in that capacity, I write title insurance for lenders and owners.
I assist my partner Jeff M. Anderson, who is the County Attorney, in representing the County of Lexington. This work includes legal research and providing legal opinions on issues concerning departments within the County government, reviewing and drafting contracts and leases, and representing the County in civil litigation.
In 2003 I served as an Arbitrator in the Automobile Arbitration Hearings in Lexington County. In 2004, I became Certified as a Circuit Court Mediator. My practice includes serving as a mediator and mediating cases where I represent one of the parties.
In January of 2005, I took over the role of Personnel Manager for the law firm and have balanced those responsibilities well with the practice of law. The law firm currently has 10 attorneys and 17 employees."
Ms. Smith provided the following regarding her legal experience:
"CRIMINAL
My experience with criminal matters primarily comes from my work for 19 months as a Judicial Law Clerk for The Honorable William P. Keesley. During this time I observed the practice of criminal law from the Judge's perspective and consulted with the Judge on legal issues involving pleas, jury selection, jury trials, rules of procedure, rules of evidence, motions and sentencing. I worked closely with Judge Keesley as he established the first Drug Court in Lexington County.
In private practice at the Nicholson, Davis Law Firm, I have had very limited experience in criminal matters. In August of 2000 I assisted with one criminal trial as co-counsel along with Carey M. Ayer who was lead counsel appointed to represent a Defendant facing seven indictments for charges including murder, armed robbery, criminal conspiracy, pointing a firearm, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. The trial lasted four days and the jury found the Defendant guilty on all counts.
I believe that my clerking experience with Judge Keesley is a good foundation to build upon in presiding as a Circuit Court Judge over General Sessions Court. I would compensate for my lack of more comprehensive experience in this area by devoting additional time to studying the Rules of Criminal Procedure and relevant case law, attending continuing legal education courses where possible, and seeking out opportunities to learn more.
CIVIL
I have a wide range of experience in civil litigation matters representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants in private practice at the Nicholson, Davis Law Firm. I have represented individuals, small and large companies, and governmental entities. I enjoy representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants. I diligently prepare my cases for trial through discovery and motions practice with careful attention to detail. In my litigation practice, I have made and argued Motions to Dismiss, Motions for Summary Judgment, Motions for Temporary Restraining Order, Motions for Temporary Injunction, Motions in Limine, Motions to Compel, Motions for Directed Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions. Many of my cases, which were ready for trial, have settled through mediation or other negotiations, due in part to the quality of trial preparation.
I am a Certified Circuit Court Mediator, which reflects 40 hours of training in mediation. In that capacity I have served as a mediator in three cases. In my civil litigation practice, even where not required, I recommend the use of mediation prior to a trial. I prepare myself and my clients for mediation with a complete review of a case and serious evaluation of the merits and risks of trial.
Following is a brief summary of the types of cases I have handled in civil litigation representing Plaintiffs, over the past five years:
I have represented homeowners as Plaintiffs in lawsuits concerning property damage against contractors, subcontractors and pest control companies. These cases concerned problems in the construction, inspection or treatment of my clients' homes. The claims asserted were for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, fraud, breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and/or breach of express and implied warranties. A great deal of discovery is needed to develop a case like this, including depositions and evaluations of expert testimony concerning the construction defects, damages, the proposed methods to correct the defects or damages, and the costs of such repair.
I have represented Plaintiffs in claims concerning real estate titles and rights to use or possess property. In one case I successfully obtained a Temporary Restraining Order directing a Defendant to cease obstructing an easement and then obtained a Temporary Injunction requiring the Defendant to remove obstructions placed in the way of the easement. In another case I represented a school district over a claim of dedicated real property. The school district case is described more fully in response to question # 19 below. My private practice includes performing real estate closings for clients and I often have to review, and work to resolve difficult title issues concerning real property. I have enjoyed real estate litigation for Plaintiffs and Defendants partly because it combines the interests of two parts of my practice.
I have represented Plaintiffs in cases of personal injury where the issues related to negligence, gross negligence, failure to warn of dangerous conditions, proximate cause, contributory negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. In one of those cases the Defendant moved to compel arbitration since the alleged cause of the injuries was a defect in construction and the contract of construction for my client's home contained an arbitration clause. The Plaintiffs opposed the Motion to Compel and the Circuit Judge agreed that the contract arbitration clause did not apply to the personal injuries. The Defendant appealed the ruling on the Motion and the case settled favorably prior an appellate decision.
I have represented Plaintiffs who were individual owners or small business owners of commercial properties seeking to enforce lease agreements, eject commercial tenants who refuse to pay rent, and/or collect money due from tenants. These cases primarily involved breach of contract and breach of personal guarantees. Some of these cases were brought in Common Pleas Court and some in Magistrate's Court depending on the prayer sought by the Plaintiff. Procedurally, most of these cases settled or ended in a judgment for the Plaintiff.
I have represented Plaintiffs concerning damages from retail practices and/or faulty repairs to vehicles. Some of these cases were brought in Circuit Court and some in Magistrate's Court. The cases involved claims of negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract and fraud. One of these cases involved asserting a claim of false imprisonment. Most of these cases settled favorably and one ended with a favorable judgment after a non-jury hearing on the merits in Magistrate's Court.
Following is a brief summary of the types of cases I have handled in civil litigation representing Defendants, over the past five years:
I have represented homeowners in defending claims related to the title of their real property. The largest and most involved of these cases was Connelly, et al. v. Sherfey, et al.
I have defended premises liability personal injury cases for the County of Lexington and the Saluda County Council on Aging. These cases involved issues of notice, negligence, proximate cause, the extent of the damages and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.
I have had a great deal of experience representing the County of Lexington and its subdivisions in civil litigation. My partner, Jeff M. Anderson, is the County Attorney for Lexington County, and because of that position, he is always involved to some degree with the County's litigation. We have worked closely together on these cases and I have taken the role as lead counsel in many instances.
I have defended the County of Lexington in two lawsuits brought by neighboring property owners involving a County landfill. One lawsuit involved claims of surface water run-off damages, negligence and inverse condemnation. That case was settled favorably on the day trial was to begin. The other case involved subsurface methane gas migration and a claim for inverse condemnation. We were successful in obtaining Summary Judgment on the case and the Plaintiff's appeal of the Summary Judgment is currently pending.
I have represented the County of Lexington in a case in which the Plaintiffs alleged that the County's application of millage rates was unconstitutional and the Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of Plaintiffs. The Circuit Court granted the County's Motion to Dismiss under the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, since the Circuit Court only had jurisdiction as an Appellate Court on an appeal from an Administrative Law Judge under the facts as alleged.
I have represented the County of Lexington in a case involving claims that the Plaintiff should have been given notice of a railroad grade crossing closing. The Circuit Court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment, which was upheld on appeal. Mosteller v. County of Lexington, 336 S.C. 360, 520 S.E.2d 620 (1999).
I have represented the County of Lexington in a case where the Plaintiff alleged violation of due process, abuse of discretion and a taking by the Lexington County Zoning Administrator and the Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals. Our Motion for Protective Order was granted in the Circuit Court denying the Plaintiff discovery and viewing the action as an appeal from the Zoning Board. As an appeal, the issues were limited to the record below. The appeal was denied by the Circuit Court.
As lead counsel, I represented the Defendant County of Lexington, the Defendant Family Court Docketing Clerk and the Defendant Lexington County Clerk of Court in a Federal Court action alleging negligence concerning the docketing and the notice given to the Plaintiff concerning a family court rule to show cause hearing. After thorough investigation of the facts, initial pleadings and written discovery, I took one deposition that I believed would be critical to the case, after which the Plaintiff dismissed the case against all defendants.
I have represented the South Carolina Department of Transportation and South Carolina Department of Public Safety in defending litigation alleging personal injuries. Typically this work has been as co-counsel with my partner Patrick Frawley. These cases involved allegations of negligence, failure to warn, design defects and the exceptions to immunity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. One of these cases (Cheek v. SCDPS) is described further in response to question # 19 below.
I represented an individual Defendant in claims made against her for breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy. As my client was of advanced age and in failing health, I arranged and took her video taped deposition de bene esse to preserve her testimony. My client is now deceased and the litigation is still pending.
OTHER LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
I have experience representing Petitioners and Respondents in litigated matters in the Probate Court. These cases involved claims for services rendered to the decedent and the estate, money owed, and disputes over distribution from an estate.
I have represented the Lexington County Recreation and Aging Commission in defending an appeal of DHEC's issuance of a water construction permit before an Administrative Law Judge, in which the Claimant was found not to have timely filed the appeal and not to have standing. The Claimant appealed that ruling to the DHEC Board and the appeal was denied.
I have represented the Lexington County Sheriff's Department as Petitioner in Circuit Court involving vehicle forfeitures following cases of multiple DUI and DUS convictions. These matters are generally not contested and simply involve attention to detail in the pleadings."
Ms. Smith reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: once in five years;
(b) State: five times per year."
Ms. Smith reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 99%;
(b) Criminal: 1%."
Ms. Smith reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 90% of my litigation practice involves matters on the Common Pleas Jury Trial Roster, however only about 1% of those cases have been actually decided by a jury. Most of my cases have resolved favorably through non-jury motions, mediation or settlement;
(b) Non-jury: 10% on the Common Pleas non-jury trial roster."
Ms. Smith provided she "most often served as lead or chief counsel in matters in litigation; however, I typically have another attorney within the firm working in a supportive or collaborative role on the file.
In cases that have been actually decided by a jury, I have served as co-counsel, dividing trial responsibilities with a partner."
The following is Ms. Smith's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Connelly, et al. v. Sherfey, et al. Civil Action No. 2002-CP-32-0919 and Connelly, et al. v. Sunbelt Golf Development, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 2001-CP-32-2049. In these consolidated cases, I was lead counsel in representing ten Defendants who were the owners of five residential lots on Lake Murray, through their title insurance policies. I also represented SCE&G who was a minor Defendant in the litigation, not in conflict with the other Defendants. Several other attorneys within my law firm worked in collaborative and supportive rolls in the litigation. Among the 12 law firms involved in the litigation, I took a leading role in coordinating efforts with other Defense counsel. The case was designated complex and Judge Marc Westbrook held numerous status conferences with the parties to help with administrative issues.
The Plaintiffs were the heirs of a prior property owner who claimed that when title to neighboring property was deeded to the Timberlake family in 1940, the property at issue in the lawsuit was not included in that deed. The allegations called into question the title of numerous residential properties along the shores of Lake Murray in Chapin.
This case involved significant and tedious research both of the law and the facts. The issues in the case included interpretation of deeds and plats, presumption of grant, the 40-year statute of repose, acquiescence, estoppel, adverse possession, laches and betterments. I initiated and contributed to extensive written discovery and numerous depositions.
The Defendants made a joint Motion for Summary Judgment on the one issue that we believed as a matter of law should have resolved the case without a trial. The case was settled at the end of a two-day mediation but prior to a ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment. I co-authored a very involved settlement agreement (almost 100 pages with all the attachments), and coordinated offering Quit Claim deeds from the Plaintiffs to surrounding property owners who had not been named in the lawsuit to avoid future title problems in that area.
This case was significant because for the clients, what lay in the balance pending the outcome of the case, was the ownership of their homes. Additionally, this case was significant to me because of its broad range of property law issues, its interesting novel legal issues, the number of parties and attorneys involved, and the enormous amount of time I invested into the discovery process.
(b) Jason Cheek v. South Carolina Dept. of Public Safety & Corey Dunbaker; and Corey Dunbaker v. South Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, Civil Action No. 98-CP-32-1158. I represented the Defendant South Carolina Department of Public Safety, along with co-counsel Patrick Frawley, in a lawsuit involving serious personal injuries. The case involved an off-duty employee of the Department who went to the scene of a one-vehicle accident near his home, when a second vehicle accident occurred causing the Plaintiff serious personal injuries. The issues in the case involved negligence, gross negligence, proximate cause, the Public Duty Rule and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. At trial, I conducted direct and cross examination of several fact and expert witnesses, made two Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony, a Motion to Strike Expert Testimony, a Motion for Bifurcation, and prepared Voir Dire and Jury Charges. After a week-long jury trial in the Lexington County Circuit Court in August of 2000, the jury found for the Plaintiff and awarded substantial monetary damages. The Department appealed the case and the case was settled while the appeal was pending. This case was significant in my experience as a trial lawyer because of the level of my participation in the jury trial, the legal and procedural issues raised in the case and because of the wisdom I gained from experiencing a substantial adverse jury verdict.
(c) School District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties v. The Harbison Group, a South Carolina General Partnership, Riverland Hills Baptist Church, Inc., and Bank of America, formerly known as NationsBank, N.A., C/A No. 99-CP-32-2989. I represented the School District, as co-counsel with Jeff Anderson, in a case where the School District was the Plaintiff in a Common Pleas lawsuit seeking to stop the sale of a piece of real property in the Harbison area. The School District claimed that The Harbison Group had dedicated property to the School District in the 1970s which was then replaced with a different piece of property in 1985. The case involved obtaining an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order and arguing a Motion for Temporary Injunction. After the Motion hearing with a ruling from the bench favorable on the Temporary Injunction, but before the written Order was signed, the Defendant removed the case to Federal Court on the basis of diversity, because the two partners in The Harbison Group were New York residents. We filed a Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court, which was heard and granted. After extensive discovery, the case was mediated on two different occasions after which a favorable resolution was obtained through a settlement. This case was significant because of its importance to the community as land available for development of schools is not easily found in this area. This case was significant for me because the issues of ownership and rights to the land were particularly interesting, and because of the experience gained concerning the interaction between the State Court and Federal Court.
(d) Richard Bolen v. Lexington County Election Commission, Civil Action No. 04-CP-32-3063. As lead counsel, I represented the Defendant Lexington County Election Commission concerning the Commission's determination that the Plaintiff did not have the requisite qualifying signatures on a petition for his name to be added to the ballot for the election of South Carolina House of Representatives (Dist. #87). Procedurally the Plaintiff's case was a Declaratory Judgment action with a Motion for Temporary Injunction to prevent printing of the ballots without the Plaintiff's name. The Motion was heard non-jury in an expedited fashion in the Circuit Court.
The Circuit Court Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion, and the Plaintiff subsequently dismissed the case. This case is significant, because although I had no prior knowledge of the Election Commission's activities or responsibilities, I investigated the very detailed facts involved, researched and became familiar with the legal issues, worked with witnesses in obtaining detailed Affidavits for the Motion hearing, and successfully argued the non-jury Motion in the Circuit Court, all within a time frame of less than two weeks from when I first learned of the case.
(e) Hatipoglu v. Reiche Homes Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 98-CP-32-1889. I represented the Plaintiff homeowners against a Contractor and Subcontractors in Common Pleas Court in Lexington County regarding defects in construction of a brick veneer home on Lake Murray. The case involved negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of warranties. The case was mediated and did not settle at mediation. In the latter stages of the litigation, after most discovery was completed, the Defendant Moved to Compel Arbitration and the issue was briefed for the Court. While preparing for the many elements of what would have been a week-long trial, I was also preparing to present to the Court the reasons why an arbitration clause in a construction contract did not apply to this case or had been previously waived by the Defendant. As the trial approached, I continued the lead role in preparing for trial while my partner George S. Nicholson, Jr. continued to negotiate a settlement. The week before the scheduled trial, but before a ruling on the Motion to Compel, the parties reached a settlement. Our team work before trial brought about a favorable settlement for the Plaintiffs.
This case was also significant because this was the first case I handled representing Plaintiff homeowners in a lawsuit over construction of their home; and since this case, I have handled several other similar matters in litigation."
The following is Ms. Smith's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a) Mosteller v. County of Lexington, 336 S.C. 360, 520 S.E.2d 620 (1999). Co-counsel with Jeff M. Anderson;
(b) Professional Therapy Equip. Co., Inc. v. Doeden et al., 97-CP-32-2435. Co-counsel with George S. Nicholson, Jr. Case settled prior to conclusion of appeal;
(c) Reuben v. Palmetto Traditional Homes, LLC et al., 02-CP-40-207. Co-counsel with Carey M. Ayer. Case settled prior to conclusion of appeal;
(d) W.R.B. Limited Partnership v. County of Lexington, 02-CP-32-3014. Co-counsel with Jeff M. Anderson. Appeal pending;
(e) Central Electric Power Coop., Inc. v. IN RE: Condemnation of a 75 Foot wide right-of-way 760 feet long across lands in Kershaw County belonging to Candace McKey, 99-CP-28-338. Co-counsel with James Randall Davis with regard to the Appellate Briefs and the Record on Appeal."
Ms. Smith reported that she had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Smith's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Smith to be "a very qualified and a highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."
Ms. Smith is married to Pauley Aaron Smith. She has three children.
Ms. Smith reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Lexington County Bar Association (1997-Present); Secretary 2005-Present); Executive Committee, Communications Chair (2004-Present);
(b) South Carolina Bar Association (1995-Present);
*House of Delegates, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Representative (July 2000-Present);
*Law Related Education Committee Member (July 1998-Present);
*Conventions Committee Member (July 2001-Present);
*Practice & Procedure Committee Member (Jan. 2005-Present);
(c) American Bar Association (1997-Present); Alternative Dispute Resolution Section, Member (2001-Present);
(d) South Carolina Women Lawyers Association (1997-Present);
(e) Association of Legal Administrators, South Carolina Chapter (2004-Present);
(f) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association (1994-2003)."
Ms. Smith provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Department of Health & Environmental Control, Division of Children with Special Health Care Needs, South Carolina's Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Advisory Council, Chairperson (2001-Dec. 2005);
(b) Department of Health & Environmental Control, Division of Children with Special Health Care Needs, Parent/Consumer Advisory Council (2001-2003);
(c) Girl Scout Council of the Congaree Area, Inc., Parent Helper (2004-Present);
(d) Richland County Guardian ad Litem, Volunteer (1993-1996);
(e) Virginia Wingard Memorial United Methodist Church, Board of Trustees (1997-2000);
(f) Lexington United Methodist Church, Stepping Stones Class (2003-Present)."
Ms. Smith additionally reported:
"My description of work experience in response to questions 14, 14(a), and 19 does not reflect the frequent times in my practice when I counsel with clients who are potential Plaintiffs or potential Defendants in civil litigation and represent them in conflict resolution negotiations which avoid the expense and risk of litigation. I see this part of my job as a lawyer and counselor as very important when considering the best interests of the client.
Since working as a Judicial Law Clerk for The Honorable William P. Keesley, I have believed that I would make a great judge one day. I have always been the kind of person that enjoyed seeing the many sides of an issue and honestly appreciated different points of view. I enjoy being in the Courtroom and have great respect for our system of justice. I enjoy the role of the Judge in interacting with the jury, attorneys, parties, and court personnel. I enjoy the role and importance of determining the jury charge in jury trials. I am detail oriented and conscientious in my work while not losing sight of the big picture. I have the ability to quickly grasp a situation. I care sincerely about people, fairness and justice. I have the ability to be firm and in control of a situation while maintaining patience and respect for others.
Because of the pending expansion of the pilot Alternative Dispute Resolution programs to a state-wide program, my training as a Circuit Court Mediator and my extensive experience mediating cases representing Plaintiffs and Defendants will give me important insight to the role and possibilities of the state-wide program. I think these skills will also be helpful in status conferences with parties in determining if adequate efforts have been given to resolve matters through negotiation.
In my private practice, I have particularly enjoyed working on cases with multiple parties and attorneys. I find the complexity of those cases very interesting and enjoy the challenge. I think that this quality and experience will be a benefit as a trial judge especially when presiding over complex matters."
The Commission commented on Ms. Smith's legal experience and her reserved temperament. When questioned by the Commission, she indicated that she could be firm when necessary. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. McMahon meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. McMahon was born on December 15, 1947. He is 58 years old and a resident of Lexington, South Carolina. Mr. McMahon provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. McMahon.
Mr. McMahon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
In its investigation of Mr. McMahon's candidacy, the Commission received multiple negative Bench and Bar Surveys that questioned Mr. McMahon's willingness to timely share evidence with opposing counsel in criminal cases while he served as an assistant solicitor. Mr. McMahon stated in his interview with counsel and at his public hearing that in his years of service as an assistant solicitor, he had an open file policy with opposing counsel and that he did not recall ever having been sanctioned by a judge for withholding evidence.
Mr. McMahon reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. McMahon testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. McMahon testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. McMahon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions fell below the level of expectation generally met by applicants.
In its investigation of Mr. McMahon's candidacy, the Commission received multiple negative Bench and Bar Surveys that questioned Mr. McMahon's open-mindedness about both sides of a legal issue as well as his ability to handle complex legal issues. Mr. McMahon commented in his interview with counsel and also at the public hearing upon the Commission's inquiry that it is his policy to factually and legally prepare a case for trial.
Mr. McMahon described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) National Advocacy Center Trial Advocacy I, 2/28/00-3/3/00;
(b) Graduate School DUI: A Day, 10/19/01;
(c) 7th Annual Ethics Seminar, 11/2/01;
(d) National Advocacy Center Trial Advocacy I, 3/4/02-3/8/02;
(e) Taking Victim Cases to Trial, 8/21/02-8/23/02;
(f) South Carolina Solicitor's Conference, 9/29/02-10/2/02;
(g) South Carolina Tort Law Update, 9/26/03;
(h) Using Mock Juries and Trials, 8/26/04;
(i) South Carolina Tort Law Update, 10/29/04;
(j) Revised Lawyer's Oath and Ethics, 12/4/04;
(k) Taking and Defending Effective Depositions in South Carolina, 10/6/05."
Mr. McMahon reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"In 1998 I was invited to lecture before the South Carolina Judiciary on the 1998 Death Penalty Update. Needless to say this was quite an honor and privilege for me. I presented the update to all members of the South Carolina Judiciary in attendance that included Supreme Court Justices, Justices of the Court of Appeals and Circuit Court Judges. This lecture and outline was prepared and presented by myself, Solicitor Barney Giese and then Deputy Solicitor Johnny Gasser. The purpose of the lecture was to update the justices and judges of South Carolina in all areas of the death penalty law. I have also lectured before the South Carolina Attorney General's Conference on Jury Selection and Capital Litigation. These lectures focused primarily on Batson and other jury issues.
I have been requested to and have lectured before numerous law enforcement agencies and organizations to include the South Carolina Association of Identification, the Lexington County Sheriff's Department, the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association. As to the South Carolina Association for Identification, I presented an outline and lecture concerning the Basis and Presentation of Expert Testimony. I have presented lectures in other areas of interest to law enforcement agencies on various topics including the laws of arrest, evidence, courtroom testimony and presentation, major case investigation and trial presentation.
I designed and scheduled a CLE course for assistant solicitors with the Fifth Judicial Circuit. The course was entitled 'Taking Victim Cases to Trial' and was approved for ten hours of CLE credit. The course included two speakers of local and national prominence and a tour of the SLED Forensic Lab for all attendees. The assistants were also given classroom instructions by each discipline within the SLED Lab. I felt it was not only an educational but also a morale building experience for the assistant solicitors.
I have been a faculty member on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) at the National Advocacy Center on several occasions. I have taught classes in trial advocacy, trial preparation and presentation of witnesses. Students at the National Advocacy Center include district attorneys, deputy district attorneys and assistant district attorneys from throughout the United States. Typically, faculty are drawn from experienced trial prosecutors from throughout the United States. As with most educational endeavors the teacher learns as much or more than he or she conveys to the students."
Mr. McMahon reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. McMahon did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. McMahon did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. McMahon has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. McMahon was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. McMahon reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Mr. McMahon reported the following regarding his military experience:
"U.S. Army Reserves, 1968-1975, E-7 SFC, Honorable."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. McMahon appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. McMahon appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. McMahon was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Mr. McMahon provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"After graduating law school I entered into the private practice of law with William (Bill) Cotty. Our practice focused on civil litigation, real estate law and criminal defense. I then opened my own practice in Lexington with emphasis on civil, criminal, and domestic litigation. During these two (2) plus years I represented numerous individuals before the Courts of South Carolina and tried several cases in the court of Common Pleas.
In 1981, I had the opportunity to return to the Lexington County Sheriff's Department as a Legal Advisor. The field of in house legal advisor in police agencies was developing in the late 1970's and early 1980's. This position combined my law enforcement experience and training with my legal education. I advised the Sheriff and officers on many matters; including, but not limited to laws of arrest, search and seizure, drug laws and forfeitures and many aspects of substantive criminal law and civil process. Part of my time with the Sheriff's department I was Detective Captain. I investigated and supervised the investigations of major violent crimes, which included rapes, armed robberies, burglaries and murders. These experiences would prove invaluable to me in my future career.
In 1983, I transferred to the Eleventh (11th) Circuit Solicitor's Office. While there I prosecuted many significant violent cases and was promoted to Deputy Solicitor in 1986. After the election of Barney Giese as Fifth (5th) Circuit Solicitor in 1995, I was offered a position as team leader of the Violent Crime Task Force. As team leader I was responsible for the prosecution of all major crimes in Richland County or the supervision of the prosecutor specifically assigned. I supervised a team of experienced trial prosecutors and assisted them in the preparation and trial of their cases if necessary or if requested. I also prepared and tried my own casework of violent crimes, which included rapes, burglaries, armed robberies and murders. I remained in that position until my retirement in 2003.
I have tried approximately sixty-five cases to jury verdicts in circuit court since 1995. In the majority of these cases I was sole or chief counsel. Most of these cases were in General Sessions and approximately twenty-five of these cases were murder cases. Of the twenty-five six were death penalty cases in four different judicial circuits (4th, 5th, 8th, and 11th). I also prepared another death penalty case for trial in the 3rd Judicial Circuit as a Special Assistant Attorney General. With the knowledge of law enforcement and the victim's family this defendant plead guilty to all charges when faced with trial. Of the remaining cases four were tried under the life without parole provisions of the South Carolina Code.
With this number of trials the issues are many and varied. One issue in many cases is the admissibility of Lyle testimony. The Lyle issue involved the admissibility of other bad acts under certain limited exceptions including a) motive, b) identity, c) the existence of a common scheme or plan, d) the absence of mistake or accident, or e) intent. This issue always involves very intense analysis of the particular facts and comparing those facts to the precedents on the various areas of exceptions.
Additionally, there are generally questions of the validity of arrest, searches, seizures and the admissibility of any statements of the defendant. Again these require complete factual and legal preparation, as do all evidentiary issues.
Another issue that comes up more and more is that of third party guilt. From the precedents of Gregory, Caulder, Parker, Williams, Southerland, Bryum and now to a very recent case of State v. Sterling Spann, there is rarely a case without some type of third party guilt issue. In addition to trying cases I have also managed a criminal docket and resolved many cases short of going to trial.
In 2003, I retired with twenty-eight (28) years of public service and entered private practice with James C. Anders, P.A. and Associates. This firm focused mainly on civil litigation, business litigation and criminal defense. After Mr. Anders' death, I joined the firm of Whetstone, Myers, Perkins, and Young, LLC that consisted primarily of the attorneys and staff of the Anders firm. During the last three years I have become intimately familiar with the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. I have argued motions in Common Pleas, including, summary judgment (both as a plaintiff and as a defendant); default motions, motions to compel, appeals from other courts or administrative agencies and motions to quash.
I have tried two civil cases before juries within the last year; one of the two involved a significant medical malpractice case, which took approximately seven days to try. Additionally I prepare summons, complaints, interrogatories, motions and other civil pleadings. Most of the civil cases I have handled have been resolved by settlement or at mediation."
Mr. McMahon reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: Occasionally;
(b) State: Weekly."
Mr. McMahon reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 40%;
(b) Criminal: 60%."
Mr. McMahon reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 50%;
(b) Non-jury: Not Applicable."
Mr. McMahon provided that he most often served as chief counsel.
The following is Mr. McMahon's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) The State v. Larry Gene Bell, 360 S.E.2d 706 (1987) S.C. Sup. Ct.; 393 S.E.2d 364 (1990) S.C. Sup. Ct. This was a very significant serial murder case, which kept the Midlands in terror during the summer of 1985. I was involved during the investigation, arrest, trial and preparation of this case. Bell abducted two young ladies within two weeks of each other, one from Lexington County and one from Richland County. Both victims were discovered murdered. The family of Shari Smith, the first victim began receiving a series of phone calls from Bell concerning Shari. In one call Bell relayed the precise whereabouts of Shari's body to the Smiths and he called again to relay how Shari had died. The second victim, Debra Mae Helmick was nine and a half years old at the time of her abduction and murder. Eight days after the abduction of Debra, Bell again called the Smith family to give them precise directions to find Debra's body.
In June of 1986, Bell was tried for the murder and kidnapping of Shari Smith, found guilty of these crimes and sentenced to death. In March of 1987, Bell was tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Debra Mae Helmick. I prepared and tried both of these cases with Solicitor Donald V. Myers. We called in excess of fifty witnesses in our case in chief and numerous witnesses in reply. There were many significant issues involved including competency to stand trial, prior bad acts, admissibility of telephone calls. Practically every discipline of forensics at SLED and several from the Federal Bureau of Investigations were involved during the trial of this case; including, but not limited to, handwriting, serology, hair analysis, ink comparisons and others. Hilda Smith, Shari's mother wrote a book about this tragic incident called 'The Rose of Shari.'
(b) The State v. Stephen Andrew Beckham, 513 S.E.2d 606 (1999). I was specifically requested to assist then Solicitor W. Townes Jones, IV, of the Eighth (8th) Judicial Circuit in the trial of this case. The victim, Victoria Lander Beckham, was murdered on June 12, 1994. In July 1995, Richard Anderson was arrested for her murder. He gave police a statement implicating appellant Stephen Beckham, Vicki's husband. Appellant was convicted of murder, kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to life for the murder, 30 years for the kidnapping, and five years for the conspiracy to commit murder, all to run concurrently.
There were numerous issues involved during the trial of this case; including, but not limited to evidence of life insurance naming the defendant as beneficiary, evidence of tax liens, evidence of defendant's flight, evidence of a fire and attempted destruction of evidence, third party guilt, chastising a witness by the Court and many others.
I cross-examined the appellant's father, Bishop Beckham, who was 'openly hostile to the (Assistant) Solicitor on several occasions.' The trial judge held a bench conference and admonished the Bishop to respond to the questions and cautioned him about editorializing. The appellant's counsel was even allowed to talk with the Bishop outside the presence of the jury about his style or demeanor on the stand. Even after the bench conference and the admonishment, the Court had to halt the proceedings again and admonish the witness a second time and advise the witness that if you editorialize again I am going to hold you in contempt. I believe that this case is very significant because of the harm inflicted and the numerous appellant issues involved in this matter.
(c) The State v. Felix Cheeseboro, 552 S.E.2d 300 (2001), S.C. Supreme Court. The appellant was charged with the 1996 armed robbery and execution style shooting of three victims at Kelly's Barber Shop located on Assembly Street in Columbia. Two of the individuals, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Poole, both in their 70's, did not survive the shooting. The third individual, Kendrick Davis, survived and testified at trial. There were numerous issues involved in the trial and appeal of this case; including, but not limited to, the destruction of the murder weapon prior to trial and before the defense team could examine it, suppression of identification on the ground that it was tainted by unreliable hypnosis session, evidence of the murder of a cab driver by the appellant under the theory of common plan and scheme and to establish motive and identity and other issues.
I believe this was a significant matter because of the multiple deaths involved, the execution style, the downtown business location, the dangerousness of the defendant to the community at large and the many intricate issues involved in the preparation and trial of this matter. One of the most glaring issues was the inadvertent destruction of the murder weapon prior to the trial of this case and prior to any examination by the defense. This destruction had to be meticulously tracked and presented to the jury for their full and complete consideration. I have tried many murder cases without a murder weapon but only one in which the weapon was destroyed in this manner by the police prior to trial. The defendant was convicted of all charges and sentenced to life without parole. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld his conviction on August 27, 2001.
(d) The State v. Roy Beck, 536 S.E.2d 679 (2000), S.C. Supreme Court. On November 13, 1996, the body of Virginia Russell was discovered lying in the road near Owens Field in Columbia. An autopsy revealed that she had been shot three times in the head with a .380 caliber pistol, between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. the preceding night. The State relied on circumstantial yet compelling evidence. This was not the only circumstantial evidence case that I tried but one with some very unique circumstantial evidence. There were numerous appellant issues including testimony regarding defendant's request that roommate participate in plan to call escort services for dates and then rob and have sex with escorts approximately four months prior to the time of the murder was admissible as to intent and testimony from other escort service employees that she was assaulted and robbed by defendant was admissible to show identity of defendant. However, there was other compelling evidence, which has been the subject of a national television broadcast concerning forensic evidence.
There were three locations involved in the investigation of this matter within two separate police jurisdictions. The Columbia Police Department and the Richland County Sheriff's Department were involved in separate matters concerning the suspect but did not know that these matters were interrelated. The three locations were: the area where the victim's body was discovered, the location of the defendant's apartment and a vehicle near the defendant's apartment which the defendant has access to. At each of these locations the police recovered a particular type of Michelob beer bottle that had the 'born on' date. During the review of the evidence in preparation of trial my chief investigator and I decided to determine if we could track these beer bottles to a common source. Through our investigation we were able to track these items to a particular brewery in Richmond, Virginia. Additionally we were able to track them to a particular production line, date and time of production within fifteen minutes. Testimony was presented at trial determining that these six beer bottles from three separate locations were shipped to Columbia, South Carolina and were most likely from the same six pack, connecting the defendant to all three locations.
(e) The State v. Edward Freiburger, Opinion No. 26042 (September 26, 2005). This is a significant case because of the difficulties involved in the preparation and trial of a case that occurred in February 1961 and not tried until August 2002. I was in the seventh grade when this incident occurred. The case involved the murder of John Orner, a Columbia cab driver whose bloody cab was found around 7:30 a.m. on March 1, 1961, on the 1200 block of Assembly Street and whose body was found on March 3, 1961 on the side of the road of Highway 601 in lower Richland County. The defendant was an 18-year-old Fort Jackson recruit at the time of Orner's slaying and always a suspect; however, after a while the case was relegated to the cold case files and lay dormant for many years. Through a unique set of circumstances the Richland County Sheriff's Department re-conducted an investigation, which led to the arrest of the defendant.
The case was significant and fascinating for numerous reasons. First, preparing and trying a case after forty-one years was challenging to say the least. With the assistance of officers I was able to locate witnesses, now well into their 70's and 80's that remember the case and were familiar with the details of the case even after all the years. The Tennessee State Trooper that arrested the defendant in 1961 for carrying a weapon (later determined to be the murder weapon), the daughter of the owner of Capital Loan and Pawn indicated that the defendant purchased the weapon on February 28, 1961, the son of a hotel owner on Main Street in Columbia where the defendant stayed two days after the bloody cab was found were all presented as witnesses at trial along with many others. Secondly, the necessity and difficulty of presenting the downtown Columbia area, the lower Richland area and Fort Jackson as they appeared in 1961. I spent a great deal of time preparing the case for historical accuracy. The South Carolina Supreme Court has affirmed this case.
Since the trial and appellant decision in this case I have attempted to research and determine the oldest murder case in American history from the time of the offense until the time of the trial. It has been a very difficult undertaking. I am familiar with cases that are older but most of those have been resolved by guilty plea. Most legal observers that I have spoken to are of the opinion that the Freiburger case is among the oldest murder cases (if not the oldest) from the date of the commission of the offense to the date of the trial and jury verdict in American history."
Mr. McMahon reported he had not personally handled any civil appeals.
Mr. McMahon further reported that he held the following judicial position:
"Lexington Municipal Judge 1980-1981; Limited to $200.00/30 days criminal, no civil jurisdiction. This court resolved traffic citations issued by Lexington Town Police Officers for violations, which the officers either observed personally or were the result of traffic accidents and misdemeanor arrest warrants within the jurisdiction of the town court. Most cases were resolved by bond forfeiture or bench trial; however, there were some jury trials over which I presided."
Mr. McMahon also stated:
"I was a private practicing attorney with an emphasis on civil litigation while I was a part time Lexington Municipal Judge."
Mr. McMahon ran unsuccessfully for a Circuit Court At-Large seat in 1999.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
In its investigation of Mr. McMahon's candidacy, the Commission received multiple negative Bench and Bar surveys that questioned Mr. McMahon's judicial temperament which the Commission fully addressed with Mr. McMahon at his public hearing. As a result of his public hearing testimony, the Commission believes that Mr. McMahon's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. McMahon to be "a very qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."
Mr. McMahon is married to Connie Juanita (Nita) Derrick McMahon. He has four children.
Mr. McMahon reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) Richland County Bar."
Mr. McMahon provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"I was formally a volunteer with Dream Riders a program for mentally and physically handicapped children and adults which allows these individuals to interact with and ride horses under the supervision of experienced riders and instructors. This program assisted these individuals in reaching their goals whatever they may be. Some of the riders competed in horse shows and Special Olympics and received recognition for it. My role was one of assistance in any manner requested and for which I was qualified. This may include being a side walker posted next to the horse while the rider was mounted or may include cooling down the horses or cleaning out the stalls."
Mr. McMahon also stated:
"I have tried hundreds of cases to jury verdict throughout South Carolina. Most of these cases have been in General Sessions court and in 1999 I was awarded the Ernest F. Hollings Award for Excellence in State Prosecutions (General Sessions). Since my retirement I have focused primarily on civil matters relating to Common Pleas. I was familiar with the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Criminal Procedure and now I am familiar with the Rules of Civil Procedures. I have tried two cases before juries in Common Pleas within the last year. When I ran for Circuit Judge in 1999 many observers opined that I was eminently qualified in the field of criminal law but lacked experience in the civil arena. I do not believe this is now the case."
The Commission commented on Mr. McMahon's wide variety of criminal experience as a former assistant solicitor. They found him qualified and nominated him for the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Few meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Few was born on April 9, 1963. He is 42 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Few provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Few.
Staff received affidavits from Mr. Buddy Vaughn and Mr. Gene Martin opposing Judge Few's re-election based on two issues. They contended that Judge Few used inappropriate language to them and Mr. Petrus, a principal in Newco Electrical Supplies, Inc.'s (Newco), in a private meeting about the settlement of Newco's lawsuit. Mr. Vaughn, also a principal in Newco, contended that Judge Few (who at the time was representing Newco as its attorney with co-counsel) settled this case in haste and without Mr. Vaughn's authorization because Judge Few wanted to finish the case before becoming a judge. Mr. Vaughn previously filed a grievance against Judge Few which was dismissed. He then filed a malpractice suit against Judge Few which was dismissed when the court granted Judge Few's Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Martin also previously filed complaints with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct and with the Commission on Judicial Conduct which were dismissed. Judge Few satisfactorily responded to the issues raised in the affidavits and the Commission found no issues of concern with regard to Judge Few's conduct in this matter. The Commission also noted that that these issues were raised against Judge Few in prior forums and not found to be of merit.
With respect to the issue of acceptance of gifts, Judge Few, at the public hearing, amended his State Ethics Commission (SEC) Statement of Economic Interest to disclose a gift he received consisting of a travel package (plane fare, half of a hotel room, and tickets) to both nights of the Final Four Basketball Tournament in April of 2004. Judge Few stated that upon his return he consulted with Cam Lewis, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct, and he was provided with an opinion that he did not have to repay this gift. The Commission requested that Judge Few ascertain the name of the gift's donor which was given to him by his banker friend's customer and provide staff with this supporting information. Staff received an amended SEC Statement of Economic Interest on December 28, 2005, which disclosed a $1400 value for the trip and the name of the donor.
Judge Few demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Few reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Few testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Few testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Few to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Few described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have attended almost every mandatory CLE for judges. I have attended the SCTLA and the SCDTLAA Annual Meetings almost every year. I have also spoken at many CLE seminars, probably an average of 4 or 5 per year. I always carry over the maximum number of hours one can carry to the next year. I have completed the National Judicial College General Jurisdiction and Advanced Evidence courses.
For 2005, I have attended the Criminal and Civil Law Update at the Annual Bar Convention in January, for which I would have received 6 hours of credit; the South Carolina Circuit Judges Association Conference in May, for which I would have received 6 hours, I believe; the Annual Judicial Conference in Columbia, for which I would have received approximately 7 hours; the South Carolina Defense Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting at Pinehurst for which I would have received approximately 4 hours; Advanced Evidence at the National Judicial College, for which I would have received approximately 23 hours.
06/10/2000, 2000 Orientation School for Judges;
08/16/2000, Annual Judicial Conference;
08/03/2000, SCTLA Annual Convention;
0510/2000, S.C. Circuit Court Judges' Meeting;
01/26/2001, S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update;
08/2001, SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/23/2001, SCCA Judicial Conference;
09/30/2001, S.C. Solicitors' Association Conference;
12/07/2001, December Seminar;
01/25/2002, S.C. Bar 17th Annual Criminal Law Update;
05/08/2002, SCACJ Circuit Judges Annual Meeting;
08/012002, SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/22/2002, SCCA Judicial Conference;
05/07/2003, SCACJ S.C. Circuit Judges Meeting;
08/07/2003, The Civil Jury in America;
08/21/2003, SCCA Judicial Conference;
08/07/2003, SCTLA Annual Convention;
01/23/2004, S.C. Bar Annual Criminal Law Update;
01/23/2004, S.C. Bar 2nd Annual Civil Law Update;
05/05/2004, SCACJ S.C. Circuit Judges Meeting;
08/19/2004, SCCA Judicial Conference;
08/19/2004, Judicial Oath of Office;
09/26/2004, Annual S.C. Solicitors' Association Conference;
09/26 -29/2005, National Judicial College, Advanced Evidence."
Judge Few reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"I have taught several continuing legal education classes, including 7 hours of teaching evidence to other judges at the National Judicial College in Reno last week. I teach every year at the Greenville Bar CLE in December. I have also spoken at several S.C. Bar CLE's, and I have spoken at the SCDTLAA Annual Meeting, and their summer meeting."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Few did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Few did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Few has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Few was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Few reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Few appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Few appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Few was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
He provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1989 - 1997:
Private Practice, primarily Plaintiff's, in partnership with J. Kendall Few;
1997 - 2000:
Private Practice, primarily Plaintiff's, solo."
Judge Few has served as a Circuit Judge since July 1, 2000. He provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 590 S.E.2d 338 (2003). This was three cases tried at one time, 1999-CP-23-3022, 1999-CP-23-5004 and 2000-CP-23-5354. The Court of Appeals affirmed me on all points in a 35-page opinion written by Judge Anderson.
(b) Sloan v. Greenville County School District, 2001-CP-23-05198. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by Mr. Sloan and the School District was allowed to proceed with a $1.5 Billion school building program.
(c) State v. Tufts, 355 S.C. 493, 585 S.E.2d 523 (Ct. App. 2003), in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a significant evidentiary ruling of mine and quoted my comments from the bench in their Opinion.
(d) State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 598 S.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 2004), in which the Court of Appeals ruled 9-0 in affirming my ruling on the chain of custody of drugs, in what has become the most important chain of custody case on the books in South Carolina.
(e) Dabbs v. Pacific Life, 2001-CP-23-07629, recently affirmed on procedural, not substantive grounds, Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-506. I granted a directed verdict in this multi-week trial over the right of an insurance company to choose their agents. I ruled that the behavior of the insurance company was competitive behavior as a matter of law and could never become the basis of civil liability."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Few's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Few to "be a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Few is married to Jane Ellen Scott Few but the couple are in the process of a divorce. He has three children.
Judge Few reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) Greenville County Bar."
The Commission inquired and determined at the public hearing that Judge Few is considered to be a fair but firm judge. The Commission found Judge Few to be qualified for continued service and he was nominated for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Buckner meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Buckner was born on May 9, 1949. He is 56 years old and a resident of Walterboro, South Carolina. Judge Buckner provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Buckner.
Two negative Bench and Bar surveys were filed before the Commission against Judge Buckner. In both surveys, individual attorneys who had appeared before Judge Buckner alleged that Judge Buckner showed favoritism to local attorneys in the Fourteenth Circuit, particularly those local attorneys representing plaintiffs. The attorneys also posited that Judge Buckner sold his practice to attorneys who appear before him in court and who are still making payments to Judge Buckner from the sale. Finally, the attorneys alleged that Judge Buckner takes part in improper ex parte communications regarding cases assigned to him.
Judge Buckner thoroughly responded to these unfavorable surveys during his hearing before the Commission. Judge Buckner did so by assuring the Commission that he goes out of his way to avoid any appearance of showing favoritism toward local attorneys appearing before him. Judge Buckner also cleared up the issue regarding the sale of his practice by producing documentation showing that that he sold his office building and his practice when he moved from private practice to the bench and that this sale was completed through a one-time lump sum payment prior to Judge Buckner ever becoming a judge. Finally, Judge Buckner responded to the allegation that he engages in ex parte communications by assuring the Commission that he only discusses scheduling matters outside the presence of opposing counsel. Judge Buckner stated that, other than scheduling matters, he avoids ex parte communications altogether and makes every attempt to avoid even the appearance of such an issue.
Judge Buckner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Buckner reported that he has made less than $100 in campaign expenditures.
Judge Buckner testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Buckner testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Buckner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Buckner described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) 06/10/2000, S.C.C.A. Judicial Orientation School;
(b) 08/16/2000, S.C.C.A. Annual Judicial Conference;
(c) 08/03/2000, S.C.T.L.A. Annual Conference;
(d) 05/10/2000, S.C.A.C.J. S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
(e) 01/26/2001, S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update;
(f) 03/05/2001, National Judicial College "General Jurisdiction;"
(g) 05/09/2001, S.C.A.C.J. S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
(h) 08/23/2001, S.C.C.A. Annual Judicial Conference;
(i) 10/05/2001, S.C.J.D. West Law Training;
(j) 09/30/2001, S.C.S.A. S.C. Solicitors Association Conference;
(k) 01/25/2002, S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update;
(l) 08/01/2002, S.C.T.L.A. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;
(m) 08/22/2002, S.C.C.A. Annual Judicial Conference;
(n) 05/08/2002, S.C.A.C.J. S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
(o) 03/16/2004, National Judicial College, "Handling Capital Cases;"
(p) 05/07/2003, S.C.A.C.J. S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
(q) 01/24/2003, S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update;
(r) 08/07/2003, R.P.F., Civil Jury in America;
(s) 08/21/2003, S.C.C.A. Annual Judicial Conference;
(t) 08/07/2003, S.C.T.L.A. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;
(u) 01/23/2004, S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update;
(v) 01/23/2004, S.C. Bar Civil Law Update;
(w) 05/05/2004, S.C.A.C.J. S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
(x) 01/21/2004, S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update;
(y) 08/19/2004, S.C.C.A. Annual Judicial Conference;
(z) 08/19/2004, S.C. Supreme Court, Judicial Oath of Office;
(aa) 11/11/2004, S.C.D.T.A.A. Annual Conference;
(bb) 05/12/2005, S.C.A.C.J. S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
(cc) 08/04/2005, S.C.T.L.A. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;
(dd) 08/24/2005, S.C.C.A. Annual Judicial Conference."
Judge Buckner reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) In 1981 or 1982 I spoke at a South Carolina Bar CLE Seminar on 'Extraordinary Writs' at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
(b) On May 18, 1984, I was moderator at a seminar on 'Condemnation Law and Practice' at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
(c) On October 21, 1994, I taught a CLE seminar entitled 'Calling as A Witness an Expert Who Was Engaged but Not Called by Opposing Party' at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
(d) On or about October 1, 2001, I served on a panel at the Annual Solicitor's Conference and gave a speech entitled 'Recent Court Decisions.'
(e) In September 2004, I spoke at a conference held at Wofford College, entitled 'Wofford and the Law.' Along with other circuit court judges, I spoke about new developments in the law, both in General Sessions and Common Pleas Court, in a speech entitled 'Observations from the Bench.'"
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Buckner did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Buckner did
not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buckner has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Buckner was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Buckner reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Regarding military service, Judge Buckner reported:
"I was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant at graduation through the Wofford College ROTC program in May of 1971. I was on active duty from October 13, 1971 to January 13, 1972. The branch of service at this time was the Quarter Master Corps. After discharge from active duty, I continued in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1972 until approximately 1979 and was transferred to the Judge Advocate General Corps, and I received my discharge from the Reserves in about 1979, at which time I had obtained the rank of Captain. My current status is inactive. I have an Honorable Discharge."
Judge Buckner reported that he held public offices as follows:
"I served as Staff Attorney for the State of South Carolina in the South Carolina Attorney General's Office from 1975 until 1977. I served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of South Carolina from 1977 to 1979. In 1997, I became a part-time Assistant Solicitor for the 14th Judicial Circuit. All of these offices are appointed."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Buckner appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Buckner appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Buckner was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.
Judge Buckner provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1975-1979:
South Carolina Attorney General's Office as a Staff Attorney and Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina.
1979-1981:
Partner in the Law Firm of Wise and Cole, P.A., in Charleston, South Carolina.
1981-1986:
Partner in the Law Firm of Smoak, Moody, Buckner and Siegel in Walterboro, South Carolina.
1986-2000:
Private Practice, Law Office of Perry M. Buckner, in Walterboro, South Carolina.
From 1975 to 1977, I was a staff attorney in the Attorney General's Office during my first two years of employment. My duties included prosecuting criminal cases in the Magistrate and Circuit Courts of South Carolina. I also handled criminal appeals to the South Carolina Supreme Court on behalf of the State of South Carolina during my initial two years with the South Carolina Attorney General's Office.
From 1977 to 1979, I moved to the Civil Division of the South Carolina Attorney General's Office and I handled civil litigation for the State of South Carolina, including representation of the South Carolina Wildlife Department, the South Carolina Highway Department, the Medical University of South Carolina, The Citadel, and the South Carolina Forestry Commission.
From 1979 to 1981, I did insurance defense work as a partner with the firm of Wise and Cole in Charleston, South Carolina. During this time, my practice consisted of almost entirely civil defense work.
From 1981 to 1986, as a partner with the law firm of Smoak, Moody, Buckner and Seigel in Walterboro, South Carolina, I handled primarily plaintiffs' personal injury cases and Workers' Compensation cases. This was a general law practice so I handled both plaintiff and defense cases in both magistrate's and circuit court.
From 1986 to 2000, in my private law practice, I handled plaintiffs' personal injury cases, Social Security cases, and Probate Court/Estate work. I also handled both plaintiff and defendant litigation in civil court, and I handled criminal defense work in the Court of General Sessions of South Carolina. In 1986 I was selected to serve on the Board of the Colleton County Public Defender Corporation, where I continued until being hired as an Assistant Solicitor for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in 1997. In 1987 I was court appointed to represent a Capital Defendant in a murder case in Colleton County, which was tried to completion in both the guilt and sentencing phases.
In 1997, I became a part-time Assistant Solicitor for the 14th Judicial Circuit, prosecuting cases for the Solicitor's Office in the Court of General Sessions for Colleton County.
From 2000 to the present, I have served as a resident Circuit Court Judge for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit."
Judge Buckner reported that he was elected on February 9, 2000, as resident Circuit Court Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1. He was sworn in on June 30, 2000, and began work on July 1, 2000.
The following is Judge Buckner's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Danny Whaley v. CSX Transportation, 01-CP-25-127. This is the recent decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court which has proven to be a landmark decision regarding venue law in South Carolina. While another Judge ruled on venue in the underlying case, I presided over the trial of the case and issued an order addressing post trial motions that were subsequently considered by our Supreme Court. The Order of the South Carolina Supreme Court addressing this case is Whaley v. CSX Transportation, 362 S.C. 456, 609 S.E.2d 286 (2005).
(b) Vicki F. Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc. and Ken Darwin, 03-CP-25-476. The Court of Appeals recently affirmed my order denying Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court of Appeals' decision in this case is cited as Vicki F. Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc. and Ken Darwin, 363 S.C. 628, 611 S.E.2d 305 (Ct. App. 2005).
(c) Georgia Department of Transportation v. Jasper County, 00-CP-27-393. This is an action brought by the Georgia Department of Transportation challenging Jasper County's use of eminent domain to acquire real property for the construction of a port facility in Jasper County. My order in this case found there was a public use in the condemnation, distinguishing Karesh v. City Council of the City of Charleston, 271 S.C. 339, 247 S.E.2d 342 (1978). The South Carolina Supreme Court decision is found at Georgia Department of Transportation v. Jasper County, 355 S.C. 631, 586 S.E.2d 853 (2003).
(d) Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Regional Hosp., Inc., 364 S.C. 158, 612 S.E.2d 695 (2005). This was a medical malpractice case involving death in which I directed a verdict regarding conflicting instructions and excluded evidence regarding conflicting discharge instructions after the withdrawal of the defense of comparative negligence. The South Carolina Supreme Court recently upheld this decision. My order denied a new trial in this case. The decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court is reported as Guffey v. Columbia/Colleton Regional Hosp., Inc., 364 S.C. 158, 612 S.E.2d 695 (2005).
(e) State of South Carolina v. Alfred T. Walker, 01-GS-06-GS-118, et seq. This was a capital case that I tried in 2005 involving multiple murders in Barnwell, South Carolina. A co-defendant was previously tried, but due to his age the State could not seek the death penalty, and this case garnered significant publicity in Barnwell and the surrounding communities. I granted a change of venire in this case. The case was tried in Edgefield and Barnwell Counties for approximately eleven (11) straight days, with the Defendant ultimately pleading guilty midway through the guilt phase of the trial, and receiving consecutive life sentences. I have provided an order from the case that addresses the legal issues of whether an assistant solicitor's representation of a criminal defendant in another judicial circuit constitutes a conflict of interest and whether such conflict could be waived by the Defendant."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Buckner's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Buckner to "meet the established criteria of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and to be qualified for re-election to his respective seat."
Judge Buckner is married to Janet Hobbs Buckner. He has two children.
Judge Buckner reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Current Member of the South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) Former Member of the Colleton County Bar Association;
(c) Former Member of the American Bar Association;
(d) Former Member of the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association;
(e) Former Member of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(f) Former Member of the South Carolina Bar Judicial Qualification Committee;
(g) Former Member of the South Carolina Bar Nominating Committee;
(h) Former Member of the South Carolina Bar House of Delegates."
Judge Buckner provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Chairman, Pastor Parrish Relations Committee, Bethel United Methodist Church, Walterboro, South Carolina;
(b) Member of the Colleton County Historical and Preservation Society;
(c) Member of Colleton County Arts Council;
(d) Member of University of South Carolina Law School Alumni Association Board of Directors."
The Commission inquired at the public hearing and determined that Judge Buckner is a well respected judge who treats everyone in his circuit courtroom with dignity. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. DeWitt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. DeWitt was born on August 25, 1955. She is 50 years old and a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina. Ms. DeWitt provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. DeWitt.
Ms. DeWitt demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has made $43.66 in campaign expenditures for postage, printing, and stationery.
Ms. DeWitt testified she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. DeWitt testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. DeWitt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. DeWitt described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Handling Domestic Violence Cases in the Criminal and Family Courts, 8/18/00;
(b) DUI-Illegal Per Se, 9/22-23/00;
(c) Tort Law Update, 9/29/00;
(d) Hot Tips, 9/15/00;
(e) Hot Tips to Keep You Out of Hot Water, 12/15/01;
(f) 17th Annual Criminal Law Update, 1/25/02;
(g) Trial & Appellate Advocacy, 1/26/02;
(h) Hot Tips, 9/20/02;
(i) 2002 S.C. Tort Law Update, 9/27/02;
(j) Guardian ad Litem Training, 1/10/03;
(k) Family Law, Parts I & II, 1/24/03;
(l) Technology Committee CLE, 1/23/03;
(m) Consumer Law Section CLE, 1/25/03;
(n) S.C. Women Lawyer's CLE, 4/11/03;
(o) ABA Annual Conference, San Francisco, 8/7-8/11/03;
(p) 13th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C., 11/21/03;
(q) Family Law Section CLE, 1/23/04;
(r) Guardian ad Litem Training, 3/5/04;
(s) Family Law Intensive Workshop, 4/24-25/04;
(t) S.C. Women Lawyers CLE, 4/30/04;
(u) 60 Tips to Build a Successful Practice, 4/22/05;
(v) Children's Issues in Family Court, 3/18/05;
(w) Attorney ECF Training, 6/14/05;
(x) Registered for Employment Law Teleseminar, 10/4/05;
(y) Registered for Update-Health Care Litigation Teleseminar, 10/11/05;
(z) Registered for S.C. Women Lawyers CLE, 10/14/05;
(aa) Registered for 2005 S.C. Tort Law Update, 10/28/05."
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) Police Reserve Officer Training Program. 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Taught courses on constitutional law, laws of arrest, search and seizure law and police ethics.
(b) Legal and Ethical Issues in Management. Webster University MBA/MA Program.
Spring & Fall 1993, Fall 1992. Topics covered included ethical issues involving defective products, false advertising, environmental hazards, contract negotiations and mergers, price fixing and union organization, as well as legal consequences and principles that applied to the situations studied.
(c) Business Law. Webster University MBA/MA Program, Spring 1994.
Topics covered included forms of business organizations, contract law, negligence, Fair Labor Standards Act, Sherman Antitrust Act.
(d) Criminal Evidence. Technical College of the Lowcountry, Beaufort. 1993.
This course covered the South Carolina and federal rules of evidence, as well as some constitutional law. Used factual situations and court decisions to teach the hearsay rule and exceptions, Miranda rights and waiver, admissibility of statements of defendants and witnesses, competency of witnesses, admissibility of prior bad acts and prior record of defendant.
(e) Family Law. Technical College of the Lowcountry, Walterboro. Summer 1987.
This course covered South Carolina statutory and case law on jurisdiction, venue, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, divorce grounds and defenses, annulment, adoptions, common law marriage, equitable division, custody factors. Also taught the drafting of pleadings.
(f) Interviewing and Counseling, Technical College of the Lowcountry, Walterboro, Fall 1987.
This course covered interviewing techniques required to illicit information from clients and witnesses by paralegals assisting lawyers in case preparation, including financial information, history, present needs. Also counseling of clients on services available through other agencies such as women's shelter, DSS. Examples used for social security cases, domestic relations and bankruptcy cases. Included lectures on confidentiality and ethics.
(g) Criminal Law, Technical College of the Lowcountry, Walterboro, Spring 1988.
This course covered procedural law from time of arrest through appeal. Also elements and penalties of most common crimes, and law applicable in death penalty cases.
Court Appointments, S.C. Bar CLE, scheduled 10/14/05;
Domestic Violence and Family Law, S.C. Bar Speakers Bureau, 2005;
Write Your Own Script, S.C. Bar CLE, 2005;
Understanding Custody and Support Laws, 5th Annual Fatherhood Conference, 2005;
Intensive Family Law Seminar, moderator, 2004;
Procedures for Appointment of Guardians, S.C. Bar CLE, 2004;
Domestic Violence in South Carolina, League of Women Voters of S.C. Conf., 2003;
Alternatives to Parental Custody, S.C. Bar CLE, 2003;
Courtroom Conduct, S.C. Bar CLE, 2003;
Notice Requirements, S.C. Bar CLE, 2002;
Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, S.C. DSS, Beaufort Staff Training, 2001;
Handling Domestic Violence Cases in Family and Criminal Courts, panel, 2000;
Soldiers and Sailor's Civil Relief Act, S.C. Bar CLE, 2000;
Corroborating the Client's Story, S.C. Bar CLE, 1999;
History of Beaufort Public Defender's Office, Port Royal Rotary Club, 1996;
The Importance of Education for Women, Battery Creek High School, 1996;
Careers in the Legal Profession, Technical College of the Lowcountry, 1995;
Best Budget Proposals, S.C. Public Defender Conference, 1994;
Insanity Defense, U.S. Law, WHHI-TV, 1994;
Women and the Law, MCAS, Beaufort, 1993;
Criminal Justice System, Leadership Beaufort, 1993;
Pre-Trial Motions Practice, Public Defender Training Conference, 1992;
Press Access to Juvenile Hearings, Public Defender Training Conference, 1991;
Juvenile Transfer Hearings, Public Defender Conference, 1990."
Ms. DeWitt reported the following regarding material she has published:
"(a) Contributor to South Carolina Family Law Toolkit, (2002) prepared for the S.C. Bar by the Family Law Section Council;
(b) Member, Editorial Review Board, Marriage and Divorce Law in South Carolina-A Layperson's Guide, by Roy T. Stuckey, 2001."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. DeWitt did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. DeWitt did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. DeWitt has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. DeWitt was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. DeWitt reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Ms. DeWitt appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Ms. DeWitt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. DeWitt was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Private Practice. Law Office of Diane P. DeWitt, Beaufort, S.C.
April 1993 - present. I have been a sole practitioner for the last 121/2 years practicing in the general sessions, common pleas, magistrate, and family courts in the 14th judicial circuit and on occasion in Charleston Co. I have represented clients before Social Security Administration hearing officers, in federal court, and before military tribunals. I have negotiated and written contracts for business clients and for a few years handled all contested evictions for a corporation that owned subsidized apartment complexes. I wrote the company's eviction procedure manual to ensure compliance with S.C. law and federal regulations and advised on employment matters. I have represented clients who were victims of crimes, and those who were under investigation but not yet charged with crimes. I have been both retained and appointed on PCRs, and in DSS cases and in probate court. I have handled magistrate and administrative decision appeals to Circuit Court. In 2000 and 2001 I served on an as needed basis as Beaufort Co.'s DSS lawyer, prosecuting child abuse and adult protective services cases when no other lawyer was available. I prepare wills, living wills, and powers of attorney, search titles and prepare real estate documents related to property divisions on family court cases. I serve as mediator in civil disputes and family court matters. Upon appointment, I serve as guardian ad litem in private custody cases and have represented large numbers of indigent battered women in family court. My practice has grown over the years as my first clients have matured and their legal needs have changed. For instance, a young person I represented on a criminal charge, returns with a personal injury case or social security claim, needing a divorce, or wanting to start a business or adopt a child, have a will drafted, or needing representation for his own child charged as a juvenile in family court, or he may have a property dispute or nuisance issue with a neighbor. I continue to represent criminal defendants, most often by court appointment. While I try those cases that must be tried, over the years I have become increasingly proficient at resolving problems without contested litigation. My legal practice has served the needs of my clients in the particular community in which I live.
In the last five years, I had a four-day jury trial in general sessions that resulted in my client's acquittal of criminal sexual conduct. The case raised significant Lyle issues, witness competency issues and expert credibility issues. I prepared for trial a case in which the client was accused of several burglaries, safecracking, and malicious injury to property. That client pled to one indictment for a probationary sentence as a result of suppression motions and briefs I prepared in his case as to admissibility of a statement and reliability of forensic evidence. There appeared to be a significant 6th Amendment right to counsel violation. I researched and prepared the pre-trial motions for another client indicted for numerous burglaries and grand larcenies. The major motion was for suppression of a statement due to Miranda violations, and prosecutorial misconduct, and suppression of other evidence obtained as 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' He obtained other counsel prior to his trial. I have represented other defendants on criminal charges that were dismissed at preliminary hearings or by the grand jury and had many clients accepted into the PTI program. I have had several jury trials and bench trials in the magistrate and municipal courts and represented individuals before the Dept. of Public Safety administrative hearing officer on breath test refusal appeals. I have also represented clients on probation violations.
In the last five years, the common pleas cases I have handled were resolved prior to filing, or after commencement of the action, through mediation and/or after discovery. These cases included dog bites, car accidents, nuisance cases, property line disputes, damage to real and personal property, intentional torts, slip and falls, contract and commercial lease disputes. I have represented Plaintiffs and uninsured Defendants in common pleas matters.
Beaufort County Public Defender Office, Beaufort, S.C.
Hired as Deputy Public Defender in June 1988, then promoted to Chief Public Defender the following month and served in that capacity until April 1993. As Chief Public Defender I represented indigents in General Sessions Court and juveniles in the Family Court. I also represented Defendants at extradition hearings, probation revocation hearings, bond hearings, and civil commitment and/or release hearings after a verdict of 'Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,' in criminal contempt proceedings, at line-ups and other critical stages, and in magistrate court on related charges. On occasion I was appointed as counsel for witnesses. Investigated cases, researched and prepared motions, jury instructions, and orders, post-trial motions, negotiated pleas or tried cases as necessary, trained assistant public defenders, served as co-counsel for assistant public defenders, prepared and presented budgets to county council and at board meetings, supervised staff of 8-9. In 5 years, I served as sole counsel for clients on approximately 2,000 warrants.
As public defender I tried approximately 100 cases as sole counsel ranging from DUI 2nd to Murder, Crack Trafficking, Felony DUI, Kidnapping, CSC, 1st and Burglary. Appeals were handled by the Office of Appellate Defense. I assisted in the preparation and trial of other cases handled by assistant public defenders. The cases raised legal issues including those related to probable cause, Search and Seizure laws, 5th and 6th Amendment Right to Counsel, Miranda violations, Lyle issues, and Doyle, Bruton issues, competency of witnesses and defendants, Baldazar issues in sentencing and defenses of necessity, alibi, entrapment, self-defense, insanity, defense of others, battered woman's defense, battered child's defense, reliability issues related to forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony. Researched and presented or cross-examined witnesses on topics such as shaken baby syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, rape trauma syndrome, munchhausen syndrome (and by proxy), osteogenesis imperfecta (brittle bone disease), DNA evidence, post traumatic stress disorder, asperger's syndrome, tourette's syndrome, organic brain damage, mental retardation, patricide, schizophrenia, multiple personality, and other mental illnesses.
Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Walterboro, S.C. (serving Colleton and Hampton Counties).
Hired as staff attorney in Fall of 1983 served as managing attorney from 1984 until June 1988. At the time, this was a federally funded agency at which I represented indigents in civil matters in state courts, at state and federal administrative hearings and at times through appeals processes in state circuit court or U.S. District Court. I represented clients before the Social Security Administration, Farmers Home Administration, Employment Security Commission, Veterans Administration and similar agencies. I appealed denial of public benefits, represented clients in Family Court actions for child support, or protection from abuse, tenants in evictions and filed claims under the Consumer Protection Code, Fair Debt Collection Act, and with the Manufacturing Housing Board. I received court appointments for representation of children or parents, or vulnerable adults in family court, and occasionally the mentally ill or physically impaired in probate court. I supervised and trained staff attorneys and paralegals, maintained records required under federal regulations and served as co-counsel on staff attorneys cases. The position required a thorough understanding of specific federal laws, federal civil procedure rules, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services regulations, manuals, and appeals processes, as well as federal regulations governing Social Security and veteran's benefits, Farmer's Home Administration construction and loan programs, and Section 8 housing rules, appeals processes and procedures, S.C. Landlord Tenant Act, S. C. Domestic Violence Act, and other laws having a major impact on the client base."
Ms. DeWitt further stated: "I stay abreast of current legal developments and areas of the law in which I have not practiced by reading the advance sheets and other legal publications, by attending seminars, by watching trials or portions of other lawyer's trials, and by listening to lawyers and judges discuss those cases. I have taught courses in areas of the law in which I have not practiced and, prior to graduating from law school, I worked for lawyers who practiced in those areas that I do not; in particular workers' compensation, employment, class action litigation, and complex personal injury work. I know the civil rules of procedures and rules of evidence. As a circuit court judge, I would read the files, hold pre-trial conferences, and study the applicable law prior to hearing cases. I would continue to read, study and stay abreast of developments in the law. My business and accounting background provide me with additional beneficial knowledge in many areas of our civil law."
Ms. DeWitt reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: 10%;
(b) State: 90%."
Ms. DeWitt reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 30%;
(b) Criminal: 30%;
(c) Domestic: 40%."
Ms. DeWitt reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 10%;
(b) Non-jury: 90%."
Ms. DeWitt provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. DeWitt's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) State v. Gentry, 00-GS-07-1583, 1600, tried 10/21-24/02. This case had several significant and complex Lyle issues, questions related to expert qualifications and admissibility of testimony on recantation, and competency of witnesses.
(b) State v. Prince, 90-GS-07-2216. Innocent client acquitted of murder. Significant issues related to competency and reliability of 4 year old mentally retarded child witness, 6th Amendment Right to Counsel violations, and alibi defense.
(c) State v. Adolphe, 314 S.C. 89, 441 S.E. 832 (Ct. App. 1994) Conviction reversed on appeal. Significant because of 4th Amendment issues related to search warrant. At trial, Lyle issues also argued.
(d) State v. Jenkins, 322 S.C. 414, 472 S.E.2d 251 (1996), reversing State v. Jenkins, 317 S.C. 183 452 S.E. 612 (Ct. App. 1994), rehearing denied. Defendant's statement not admissible under Lyle and based on testimony presented by Defendant and State witnesses at Jackson v. Denno hearing.
(e) S.C. DSS v. Middleton, 02-DR-07-572. Prosecution of sexual abuse case using civil rules of procedure in family court. Significant issues related to competency and reliability of testimony of two children in a case where state and defendant's experts' testimony was in conflict. Numerous pre-trial motions, including Defendant's request to admit evidence not admissible under rape shield statute. A finding the Defendant was the perpetrator of the abuse was necessary to protect these and other children, and for the state to understand strength of its case to proceed with a criminal indictment against the Defendant."
Ms. DeWitt reported that she personally handled the following civil appeal:
"(a) Hess v. Hess, Unpublished Opinion No. 96-UP-468 (S.C. Ct. App.) December 3, 1996, filed December 16, 1996."
Ms. DeWitt reported that she had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Ms. DeWitt reported that she was an unsuccessful candidate as follows:
"(a) Spring 1997 Candidate for Seat 3, Family Court of Fourteenth Judicial Circuit; found qualified, withdrew prior to election;
(b) February 2000, Candidate for Seat 1, Circuit Court of Fourteenth Judicial Circuit; qualified and nominated, withdrew prior to election;
(c) May 2000, Circuit Court At Large Seat 1; qualified, not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. DeWitt's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. DeWitt to "meet the established criteria of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and to be qualified for election to the circuit court."
Ms. DeWitt is divorced. She has three children.
Ms. DeWitt reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) S.C. Bar member, pro bono volunteer, speaker's bureau volunteer, former Chairperson, Family Law Section Council 2003-2004, Section delegate, council member 1998-2005; 1985 high school mock trial coach, 2005 middle school mock trial judge;
(b) American Bar Association, Litigation and Family Law Section member;
(c) S.C. Women Lawyer's Association, volunteer mentor;
(d) Beaufort County Bar Association;
(e) Beaufort Co. Public Defender Corp., President 1993-2005."
Ms. DeWitt provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Baptist Church of Beaufort, member of Personnel Committee, secretary of Real Property Acquisition Committee;
(b) Salvation Army of the Lowcountry Advisory Board, member, Executive and Endowment Committees, Chairperson Christmas Committee;
(c) Rotary Club of Beaufort, Director of International Service; Chairperson Law Enforcement Committee; Youth Exchange Student counselor; volunteer High School Career Day;
(d) Greater Beaufort Chamber of Commerce;
(e) Carolina Alumni Association;
(f) Friends of the Library, Beaufort, S.C.;
(g) YMCA, Port Royal, S.C.;
(h) AARP."
Ms. DeWitt further provided:
"I have worked in and around the law, lawyers and the legal system since I was a teenager still in high school when I began running errands for a law firm after school. The lawyers and staff took an interest in me and gave me increasingly more responsibility as I was taught to answer the phones, work the machines, handle the public, prepare documents and search titles. When the original firm split, I went with the younger lawyers. They exposed me to more areas of the law and allowed me to assist in trial preparation, and to sit and take notes for them during the trials. 'The law' was vast and contained a solution for every situation. I was absolutely fascinated and wanted to be a lawyer too. When one of the young attorneys left to become Beaufort's first public defender, I followed and worked for him and the subsequent lawyers, all of whom were just out of law school. They were young and enthusiastic, full of new ideas and energy. Eventually I was promoted to investigator. During my early working years, I finished high school, then attended college at night, year round. Eventually I was able to transfer to USC in Columbia to finish college and go to law school. It took me ten years to make it back home to Beaufort but when I returned I was the Chief Public Defender in the same office where I had worked as a secretary. I was both humbled and honored to try the first two cases in Beaufort County's new courthouse when it opened.
Many of the lawyers I worked for are now deceased. However, I am forever grateful to them and the judges I have known over the years for teaching me a love of the law, respect for our judicial system, the ethics of courteous, statesmen lawyers, and compassion for all citizens. Their encouragement, guidance and faith in my abilities motivated me to persevere and succeed. Learning every angle of the system from the bottom up has made me a more well-rounded lawyer. It has given me an appreciation for the role each person has in a proceeding and in their various jobs at the courthouse. As a circuit court judge, I would strive to be a good role model for all lawyers and others interested in the law and our court system. My goal would be to set a professional standard for myself, my colleagues and others that is as strong, positive and contagious as the one my mentors set for me."
The Commission was impressed with Ms. DeWitt's presentation at the public hearing and noted that she would bring the appropriate judicial temperament to the Circuit Court bench. They found her qualified and nominated her for the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Mullen meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. Mullen was born on April 18, 1968. She is 37 years old and a resident of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.[1] Ms. Mullen provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1995. She has been licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois since 1996.
[1] The Commission addresses the issue of Ms. Mullen's residency under Heading (10) Miscellaneous.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Mullen.
Ms. Mullen demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Mullen reported that she has made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Mullen testified she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Mullen testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. Mullen to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Mullen described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Construction for Construction Lawyers, September 30-October 1, 2005;
(b) Hot Topics in Construction, February 3, 2004;
(c) U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Training, July 22, 2003;
(d) S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention, August 7, 2003;
(e) South Carolina Bar 'Litigation Technology,' November 6, 2003;
(f) Charleston County Bar Association CLE Year-End Update, December 13, 2002;
(g) ATLA 'Art of Persuasion,' Harvard Trial College, week of March 24, 2001;
(h) S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Auto Torts, December 1-2, 2000;
(i) South Carolina Bar 15th Annual Criminal Law Update, January 21, 2000;
(j) S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention, August 3-5, 2000;
(k) S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention, August 2005;
(l) Construction Law Update and New Oath, December 3, 2004;
(m) Construction Defects and Failures, September 28-29. 2001."
Ms. Mullen reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Ms. Mullen reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Mullen did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Mullen did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Mullen has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Mullen was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Mullen reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Ms. Mullen appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Ms. Mullen appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Mullen was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1995.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since law school graduation:
"Judicial Law Clerk to Honorable L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, April 1995-August 1996. Assisted Judge in all research, writing orders, scheduling, etc.
Charleston County Public Defender's Office, Assistant Public Defender, August 1996-December 1997. Handled caseload of 250+ criminal defendants for misdemeanor and felony crimes including murder, CSC 1st, burglary 1st, and ABHAN.
South Carolina House of Representatives, Labor, Commerce & Industry Committee, Staff Attorney, December 1997-October 1998. Duties included researching legal affect of pending bills before legislature and instructing Members on law and drafting some legislation when requested by Members.
Uricchio, Howe, Krell, Jacobson, Toporek & Theos, Associate, October 1998-April 2000. Criminal and civil litigation practice in state and federal courts. Case types: Plaintiffs tort actions, contract disputes, criminal defense.
Berry, Tevis & Jordan, Partner, April 2000-May 2001. Tort litigation including automobile accidents and some criminal defense.
Carmen M. Tevis, LLC, Solo Practitioner, May 2001-present. Tort litigation, construction litigation, contract litigation, fraud litigation, and criminal defense in state and federal courts."
Ms. Mullen further reported:
"Experience in Criminal Matters:
As a public defender, I defended over 300 criminals in the Court of General Sessions. After serving as a public defender, I continued criminal defense work in private practice both through retained clients and court appointments. I currently have pending five General Session criminal cases and one federal court criminal case involving a complex drug conspiracy. I have also served on the Federal Court Appointment List by the request of the Federal Court Magistrate since 1998. My criminal experience includes court appearances at all levels, including bond hearings, motions hearing, preliminary hearings, guilty pleas, and jury trials to verdict.
Experience in Civil Matters:
Over the course of my legal career, I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of civil matters. I have handled construction cases involving multiple parties with insurance coverage issues, various types of automobile accidents, fraud cases, libel and slander cases, contract dispute cases, foreclosure matters, and disciplinary proceedings before the Medical Examiner's Board, Nursing Board, and Real Estate Board. Currently, my civil practice is predominantly representing the plaintiff."
Ms. Mullen reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: Approximately 50 times;
(b) State: Approximately 200+ times."
Ms. Mullen reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 80%;
(b) Criminal: 20%;
(c) Domestic: 0%."
Ms. Mullen reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 10%;
(b) Non-jury: 90%."
Ms. Mullen provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Mullen's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Manuel and Gloria Peralta v. Shamsy Mandini and S. Ahmed Mandini, 2000-CP-07-1175, and Saunders, Inc. d/b/a Re Max Island Realty v. Shamsy Mandini and S. Ahmed Mandini, 2000-CP-07-907. These two cases derive out of a breach of contract regarding the sale of a million dollar home in Windmill Harbour, Hilton Head Island. One action was brought by the realtor and the other by a buyer in an effort to force Defendant to sell her home during a time Defendant was particularly vulnerable going through a divorce. I tried both of these cases and received defense verdicts for my clients.
(b) Cambridge Building Corp. v. Dr. Joseph A. Borelli, 2002-CP-07-676. A breach of contract action I brought on behalf of a builder who was not paid by a homeowner. Significant in that the counterclaim by Defendant far exceeded the original claim. Case was tried to a jury and the builder received his money in full and no money was owed on the counterclaim.
(c) 'Hamlet Litigation'
Thomas W. Knode, et al. v. Southeastern Construction Co. of Summerville, Inc., Systems of South Carolina, Inc., Dryvit, Inc., Rogers Roofing Company, Inc., Willis & Jennings, Edward D. Scott, Kinco Ltd., Southeastern Design and Development, Inc., and John G. Dumas, 2004-CP-08-422; 2004-CP-08-424; 2004-CP-08-657; 2004-CP-08-427; 2004-CP-08-356; 2004-CP-08-645; 2004-CP-08-647. I represented a group of homeowners consisting of seven families against multiple defendants for faulty workmanship and construction defects in the building of their homes. All homeowners are older and had purchased homes to retire in and could not afford the cost to repair absent settlement paid.
(d) Robert and Janice Varner, et al. v. South Carolina Federal Credit Union, Docket No. 2:04-0164-18; Docket No. 2:04-22323-18; Docket No. 2:04-22324-18; Docket No. 2:05-0716-18. Four federal court cases against the South Carolina Federal Credit Union wherein a Credit Union employee performed transactions and drafted bank checks and embezzled funds in an attempt to defraud an elderly couple and others out of their life savings. Causes of action: fraud, breach of express and implied contract/breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence/willful misconduct, constructive fraud, violation of S.C. Unfair Trade Practices Act, theft, embezzlement or misapplication by bank officer or employee, conversion, civil conspiracy, violation of #12 U.S.C.A. Section 17-51, et. seq., Federal Credit Union Act, and accompanying regulations and libel and slander. Complexity of issues and extreme difficulty in ascertaining loss, even by experts, make these cases significant.
(e) U.S. v. Dominique Green, 9:01-00691. Defended in federal court by appointment a multi-count indictment, including conspiracy and trafficking crack cocaine and other narcotics with multiple levels of defendants wherein my client is charged at being on the top of the drug
chain and is currently awaiting a Rule 35 hearing after testifying in multiple cases for the U.S. Attorney's Office."
The following is Ms. Mullen's account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:
"(a) L-J, Inc. v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 350 S.C. 549, 567 S.E.2d 489 (Ct. App. 2002). L-J, Inc. v. Bituminous is an insurance coverage case. Wrote Amicus Brief for the rehearing before the South Carolina Supreme Court on behalf of South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, September 26, 2005."
Ms. Mullen reported that she had not handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Mullen's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Ms. Mullen was "found not to meet the established criteria of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission in the opinion of the Lowcountry Citizens Committee, and, thus, the Committee does not recommend . . . (her) for election to the Circuit Court." The Lowcountry Citizens Committee gave the following reasons: "(1) The Committee raised issues over Ms. Mullen's residence, which must be located in the Fourteenth Circuit for the seat she is currently seeking. The Committee is still unclear about her permanent residence. (2) The Committee is concerned that Ms. Mullen's law practice is not focused in the Fourteenth Circuit where she is currently seeking a judgeship."
In response to the report of the Lowcountry Citizens Committee, the Commission noted that Ms. Mullen provided staff with the following documents as proof of residency in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit: (1) voter's registration; (2) driver's license; (3) Beaufort County Assessor's 2004 Notice of Classification, Appraisal and Assessment of Real Estate which she also testified at the public hearing was the tax bill for her legal residence; and (4) 2004 federal and state income tax returns for George E. and Carmen M. Mullen which verify her residency. The Commission further noted that in order to be constitutionally qualified to sit as a Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge, at the time of election she must be a registered voter in Beaufort, Allendale, Jasper, Hampton, or Colleton County and during her continuance in judicial office, she must reside in the circuit in which she is a judge pursuant to S.C. Constitution Article V, Section 13.
With respect to her trial experience, Ms. Mullen also submitted to staff a list of 66 cases that she is currently handling or recently completed in the past 3 years in the Fourteenth Circuit. The Commission noted that Ms. Mullen testified at the public hearing that she has an active trial practice in Beaufort, Charleston, Dorchester, Berkeley, Orangeburg, and Lexington counties.
Ms. Mullen is married to George Edward Mullen, Sr. She has three step-children.
Ms. Mullen reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(b) South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;
(c) Association of Trial Lawyers of America."
Ms. Mullen provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Wexford Club;
(b) Seabrook Island Club;
(c) Thornblade Club."
Ms. Mullen additionally reported: "With the exception of my time at the statehouse, my entire legal career has been in litigation. I have an enormous respect for the bench and the impact each judge has not only on the litigants and juries, but also the attorneys involved."
The Commission commented on Ms. Mullen's zeal for the practice of trial law and that she would be an asset to the Circuit Court bench. They found her qualified and nominated her to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Taylor meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Taylor was born on September 30, 1956. He is 49 years old and a resident of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Mr. Taylor provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985. Mr. Taylor has been licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Taylor reported that he has made $373.31 in campaign expenditures for postage, printing and stationery.
Mr. Taylor testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Taylor testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Taylor to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Taylor described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) During 2000, I attended Tips From the Bench, 2/25/00; Tort Law Update, 9/29/00 and Health Care Fraud, 10/06/00.
(b) During 2001, I attended Tips From the Bench, 12/14/01, Ring Out the Old, Ring In the New, 12/21/01 and took two 'Seminars Direct,' entitled 21 Tips To Avoid Malpractice In the 21st Century.
(c) During 2002, I attended Current Issues In Real Estate Law, 10/4/02, and S.C. Automobile Insurance Law, 10/25/02.
(d) During 2003, I attended the 13th Annual Criminal Practice Seminar, 11/21/03, Masters In Trial, 11/14/03, Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Ethical Perspective, 12/10/03 and Ethical Considerations and Pitfalls for the Criminal Law Lawyer, 12/10/03.
(e) During 2004, I attended the Civil Court Mediation Certificate Training, August 19-23, 2004."
Mr. Taylor reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"I have taught at the Technical College of the Lowcountry. I was an instructor in the Paralegal program, where I taught civil procedure and torts. The civil procedure course was a basic introductory course geared toward helping students grasp the concepts of a Complaint, Answer, service of process and the related issues of office procedure a paralegal is routinely going to encounter. The torts introductory level course was also focused mostly on the 'office issues' a paralegal would face in assisting a lawyer with the handling of a negligence case, such as interrogatories, depositions and the like. In addition, I have lectured in a number of Leadership programs in the Lowcountry, mainly on the issues of how our Court system is structured and operates, and how our local and state governing bodies are set up and operate."
Mr. Taylor further reported:
"I have, over my years of public service, written a number of articles published in the Island Packet, our local newspaper. They consist of the following as best I can remember: 'Public Input Needed on 11-district County Council plan,' Nov. 16, 1991; 'Time to celebrate the victory of the Battle of Victory Bluff,' Nov. 1, 1992; 'Annexation Battle-county tried all avenues,' Jan. 27, 1997; 'County Council not attempting takeover,' May 3, 2001; 'School budget increase enough,' July 5, 2002."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Taylor did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Taylor did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Taylor has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Taylor was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Taylor reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Mr. Taylor reported the following regarding his military experience:
"I was awarded a four-year Air Force flight scholarship to attend Clemson University in 1974. As part of the commitment to the scholarship, I was enrolled in the Air Force Reserves. However, when I did not test for 'perfect' depth perception in my vision upon reporting to Clemson University in August of 1974, I was offered the opportunity to resign the scholarship if I did not want to train to be a navigator/bomber. Because I did not want to ride in the second seat, I resigned the scholarship and received an Honorable Discharge from the Air Force Reserves. To my knowledge, I was never assigned a serial number."
Mr. Taylor, addressing prior public offices held, stated:
"I was elected to the Beaufort County Council in November of 1990, and began 12 years of continuous service on January 1, 1991, completing my fourth consecutive term on December 31, 2002. During that period of service, I was elected Chair three times by my peers."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Taylor appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Taylor appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Taylor was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
Mr. Taylor provided the following account of is legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Following my graduation in May 1984, I associated with Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman and Ashmore in Atlanta, Georgia. My practice with Troutman Sanders consisted entirely of trial work and trial preparation in the fields of wrongful death and negligence defense for the Georgia Power Company, medical malpractice defense for several insurance carriers and some banking work for the First Georgia Bank.
In May of 1987, following the birth of my second child, I decided to return to South Carolina and entered the Hilton Head Island-based law partnership of Black and Biel, where I assumed all litigation matters for the small general practice firm. One year later, I was invited into the existing partnership of McKay & Mullen, P.A. on Hilton Head, where the late John J. McKay, Jr. and I began to build a focused litigation practice involving trial cases ranging from employee discrimination claims to protective covenant issues. We represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants and took many cases on referral.
In the winter of 1990, I was invited to become a partner in the Hilton Head Island-based law firm of Bethea, Jordan & Griffin, P.A., where I was asked to help build a larger and stronger litigation practice in the long-established firm. At that time, I served as counsel to three large homeowners associations in all litigation matters, both plaintiff and defendant, and at Bethea, Jordan & Griffin, cultivated a trial practice involving various other litigation areas ranging from construction litigation to real estate disputes.
In March 1993, my best friend, Terry Finger, and I decided to open our own practice as Finger & Taylor, P.A., and we began to build what we felt was the best small litigation firm in Beaufort County. We handled a broad spectrum of trial work, from personal injury and construction claims to employment discrimination and intellectual property disputes. I mainly represented plaintiffs, but on occasion for existing clients, handled defense cases also. In addition, I handled a number of family court cases involving divorce, property distribution and child custody, and the occasional small criminal matter for existing clients.
In November 1997, I was widowed and began the process of attempting to raise three young children, ages 8, 10 and 12, alone. Because of my desire to remain involved in the legal field while trying to raise them, I became 'Of Counsel' to Finger & Taylor in 1998, but quickly found out that a full-time trial practice and a full-time single parenting role did not mix-especially since I was also serving on the Beaufort County Council.
After lengthy reflection, I decided to re-prioritize my life until my children were (hopefully) safely into their teenage years, and I withdrew from the trial practice of Finger & Taylor, began to develop a broader interest in the law through reading and CLEs, continued my public service on the Beaufort County Council and concentrated mainly on getting my children through the adolescent years. Since then, through today, I have continued my close association with what is now Finger, Fraser & Andrews, P.A., and often consult with my old partner on various legal matters upon which we share interests.
I married in May 2004 and two of my three children are now in college and one in 11th grade. I am ready and anxious to return to the full-time practice of law and I believe my 14 years of legal experience in the litigation field and my 7 years of study since has prepared me well for the Circuit Court Judgeship."
Mr. Taylor further reported:
"I have very limited courtroom experience in criminal matters, having tried or pled-out only two or three small matters in my career. As is noted above, my professional career has always been in the civil arena. However, I have, since law school, had a genuine interest in the criminal field, and I am familiar with criminal procedure and the substantive law in South Carolina.
In the civil field, as is outlined above in response to PDQ Question 13, I have handled a broad spectrum of cases. At the beginning of my career, my focus was as a defense lawyer in large personal injury cases involving the Georgia Power Company and in medical malpractice cases representing doctors, nurses and one midwife. These cases were tried in Georgia state and federal courts, both jury and nonjury.
After my return to South Carolina, I began to focus mainly on Plaintiff's work in litigation matters, and on general representation of Homeowner Associations. Throughout my years in Beaufort County, I have represented numerous large HOAs in matters ranging from construction litigation to 'developer turnover' issues, to the enforcement of restrictive covenants. In addition, I have tried employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge cases, numerous wreck cases, a number of serious personal injury claims, several construction design/defect cases and various other matters including family court trials. The procedural histories vary by case, but most included thorough, often complex, discovery. A majority of the cases settled, thankfully, but I have also been involved in a number of appeals.
Notwithstanding my lack of trial experience in criminal matters, as a long-serving public official and a very involved citizen in this community, I realize fully the importance of a fair and efficient criminal justice system. It is important not only to those accused and those involved in the system as jurors or court employees, it is also vitally important to the people of the state of South Carolina that our criminal justice system, which often gets more media attention than the civil side, be presided over by judges who our citizens see as fair and above reproach.
We are, I believe, at one of those critically important social conflict phases in our country's development, and I truly believe that our court system will play a vital role in how our nation progresses from this time of social change. The war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, natural disasters and a turbulent economy have all given rise to an elevated sense of conflict in many areas of society. We need experienced, fair and intelligent judges who will continue to build confidence in our judicial system as many areas of these social changes beget litigation and criminal prosecution. My background as a native South Carolinian, educated here, having practiced civil litigation here for years in our federal and state courts, having served 12 years on county council, having been involved deeply throughout our community in myriad ways, and being seen, I believe, as a very patient, fair and just leader, has particularly prepared me for service on the Circuit Court Bench.
As is noted above, in addition to 14 years of continuous trial practice in the civil area, I have taken numerous CLEs on criminal law issues and have kept up to date through reading. I am sure my academic background, my civil trial experience, and my study of criminal law and procedure, along with my patience, temperament and intellect, will enable me to handle the rigors of criminal cases."
Mr. Taylor reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: Four times a year;
(b) State: Eight times a year.
I interpreted this question to be about trials and not simply courtroom appearances including motions and other hearings. I am a trial lawyer and my practice consisted of only courtroom work and preparation. I tried approximately 12 cases a year on average, eight state and four federal, which is, I think, certainly considered a very active trial practice. But as to appearances, including Motions and other hearings, I am sure I averaged at least four to five Court appearances a month, or at least fifty (50) a year, often more."
Mr. Taylor reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the 14 years before he temporarily withdrew from practicing law in 1998 as follows:
"(a) Civil: 90%;
(b) Criminal: 2%;
(c) Domestic: 8%."
Mr. Taylor reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during his 14 years of practicing law as follows:
"(a) Jury: 60%;
(b) Non-jury: 40%."
Mr. Taylor reported that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Taylor's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Spa On Port Royal Sound Horizontal Property Regime v. Stevens & Wilkinson, Inc., Caddell Construction Co., Inc., Stanley D. Lindsey and Associates; W.R. Grace & Co.; Carlisle Corporation; John Caddell; IHM, Feimster-Peterson, Inc. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., U.S. District Court for the District of S.C., C.A. #90-2809-1. This was a complex, lengthy case involving a 260 plus unit condominium with substantial construction defects, in which I represented the Plaintiff. It resulted in a settlement after 3 years of litigation of over $1.5 million.
(b) Bluffton Cablevision v. Rose Hill Plantation Development Company, Colleton Cable T.V. Joint Venture, Burke, Fox & Company, the Welton Corporation, Colleton River Amenities Corporation, CABCO, Inc., RHR, Inc., and Cable of the Carolinas, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of S.C., Case No. D. 90-0033-1. In this complex federal case, I represented Defendants Colleton Cable, Burke Fox, CABCO, RHR and Cable of the Carolinas in defending both the claims of the Plaintiff seeking access to a private development pursuant to the Federal Cable Act of 1984, as well as prosecuting their counterclaims for trespass and monetary damages. It was significant in that it was the first case in a county of numerous 'private' developments, where the developer and homeowners sought to establish a private cable provider and bar the local 'public' provider from access. It resulted in a settlement after two years of litigation wherein the Plaintiff bought out the Defendants' business.
(c) Wexford Plantation HOA v. Jo Ann Dimond, Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action No. 91-CP-07-277. In this unusual case, I represented the Plaintiff Homeowners Association in a suit to enforce its covenants against a homeowner who, the Plaintiff contended, was violating the Restrictive Covenants and rules and regulations of the development in many ways, including the posting of a prohibited sign, interfering with employees, and threatening and intimidating management. The defendant filed numerous Counterclaims, including claims for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1985 and S.C. Code Annot. Section 16-11-620. The counterclaims and the defendant's sworn testimony included very serious allegations of malfeasance on the part of the HOA's agents and sought recovery for intentional physical and emotional damages. Because of the particularly sensitive nature of the counterclaims, this case received much media coverage, and two lengthy trials resulted in mistrials, one because of unsolicited statements from the Defendant on the stand about insurance coverage of the Plaintiff and the second because of a hung jury. Post second trial, the Hon. Richard Fields directed verdicts on the counterclaims in favor of the Plaintiff and the remaining equitable claims were referred to Judge Kemmerlin, who tried them and ruled for the Plaintiff HOA. The case also featured one trip to the S.C. Supreme Court during the pendency of the case on the Defendant's various motions.
(d) Sharon Knight v. Optimum Resource, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of S.C. Case No. 95-1950-1AJ. In this retaliatory discharge case, I represented the Defendant corporation. Unfortunately, as often happens, the claims involved a manager who had been let go some time before, and who was not cooperative. The allegations were of a sexual and racial nature, and resulted in a verdict adverse to the Defendant. It was significant because of the nature of the case, the factual circumstances that were hotly contested and the result.
(e) International Paper Corp. of S.C. v. Savannah Marine Service, Inc., State Court of Chatham County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 1-95-1334-F. In this complex case relating to the coming development of Hutchinson Island, my client, International Paper, sought to eject the defendant from a long term land lease because of numerous allegations of breach, specifically including allegations of serious environmental damage being caused to the property and the Savannah River by the Defendant's on-going barge and boat painting operation, and repair yard. The lengthy discovery phase included a detailed environmental audit and significant expert witness showdowns, and resulted in a trial and verdict in favor of the Defendant on the breach of lease issues. An appeal was initiated in the Georgia Court of Appeals and shortly thereafter, the case settled."
The following is Mr. Taylor's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Lawrence J. Dema and Patricia J. Dema, Appellants, v. Howard Parker d/b/a Aqua Cycle International and The Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, a body politic, Respondents, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 312 S.C. 528, 435 S.E.2d 875 (1993). (I represented the Appellants, the Demas.)
(b) Francis A. LeFurgy and Priscilla R. LeFurgy, Respondents, v. Long Cove Club Owners Association, Inc., Appellant, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 313 S.C.200, 479 S.E.2d 35 (1996). (I represented the Respondents, the LeFurgy.)
(c) Lee R. Goodman and Phyllis Daniels Goodman, Appellants, v. Lands End Homeowners Association of Hilton Head, Inc., Respondent, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case No. 91-2542 (decided May 6, 1992)(unpublished opinion). (I represented the Plaintiff Appellants, the Goodmans.)
(d) Tremont Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, v. A.J. Dunlap and Judith Dunlap, Respondents, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 310 S.C.180, 425 S.E.2d 792 (1992) (I represented the Respondents, the Dunlaps.)
(e) Gayle H. Taylor and Thomas C. Taylor, Respondents, v. Rajko Medinica and the Cancer Immuno Biology Laboratory, Appellants, South Carolina Supreme Court, 324 S.C.200, 479 S.E.2d 35 (1996) (Although a party plaintiff/respondent, I personally wrote the majority of the respondents' Briefs and handled most of the appeal work outside of argument.)"
Mr. Taylor reported that he had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Taylor's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Mr. Taylor was "found not to meet the established criteria of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission in the opinion of the Lowcountry Citizens Committee, and, thus, the Committee does not recommend . . . (him) for election to the Circuit Court." The Lowcountry Citizens Committee gave the following reasons:
"(1) The Committee has issues over Mr. Taylor's lack of criminal court and trial experience, which the candidate openly admits, and (2) The Committee is also concerned with the fact that Mr. Taylor has not engaged in the practice of law for the past eight years."
In response to the report of the Lowcountry Citizens Committee, the Commission noted that Mr. Taylor's litigation and trial experience was extensive with an extremely active litigation practice in the 14 years prior to Mr. Taylor's withdrawal from active practice in 1998. The Commission also noted that Mr. Taylor had continued to exercise his legal abilities while serving as the chair of Beaufort County Council until December of 2002. Finally, the Commission noted that Mr. Taylor continued to stay abreast of legal issues during his absence from active practice through his attendance at continuing legal education seminars and as demonstrated by his performance on Commission's practice and procedure questions.
Mr. Taylor is married to Donna Plant Taylor. He has three children and one step-child.
Mr. Taylor reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) American Bar Association;
(b) South Carolina Bar Association;
(c) Georgia Bar Association;
(d) Beaufort County Bar Association."
Mr. Taylor provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Governor's Task Force on Base Closure;
(b) Friends of the Children (Medical University of South Carolina Children's Hospital Support Organization)(Board Member);
(c) American Cancer Society (Beaufort County Board Member);
(d) South Carolina Governor's School for Science and Mathematics-Chairman of External Affairs Committee;
(e) Hilton Head Island Rotary Club-Paul Harris Fellow;
(f) National Parks Conservation Association;
(g) Rails To Trails Conservancy;
(h) Appalachian Trail Conference;
(i) The Sierra Club;
(j) Recipient, Martin Luther King, Jr. Distinguished Service Award, Beaufort County, S.C. January 2004.
Other community involvement prior to assuming Chairmanship of the Beaufort County Council, i.e., more than five years ago:
(k) Town of Hilton Head Island Public Safety Task Force-Vice Chair;
(l) Boys and Girls Club of Beaufort County (Board Member);
(m) Leadership Hilton Head Board of Regents (Board Member);
(n) Graduate, Leadership Hilton Head;
(o) Chairman of the Administrative Board, St. Andrew By The Sea United Methodist Church, Hilton Head Island, S.C."
Mr. Taylor further provided:
"As a fourth generation South Carolinian, I have a deep respect for our people and our state. My parents instilled in me early on the importance of community involvement and public service, and I have always tried to use my talents to better the county and region where I live and the State I call my own. I am one of those people who genuinely believes that the law is the most honorable of all professions, and when I had the opportunity to study it at USC, I gave it my best and graduating first in my class was one of the proudest moments of my life. Since then, I have striven to develop professionally into the best trial lawyer I could be, always hoping an opportunity to serve on the bench would arise.
As life has a habit of bringing us, I found myself taking on new and unexpected challenges in my professional and personal life in my early thirties. Our county and the Lowcountry were facing multifaceted problems relating to a burgeoning population and rampant development, and I decided to offer my talents into elected public service. I became the youngest Chairman ever of the Beaufort County Council and led the county through more than a decade of change, including two rounds of redistricting (including a dramatic change from multi-member to single member districts), two rounds of base closure, the drafting and implementation of South Carolina's first county-wide Comprehensive Plan and myriad related development issues. During all of these years of complex, sometimes traumatic, change occurring in Beaufort County, I believe I provided consistent, fair and impartial leadership that my County Council members and the public viewed as open and honest. I also believe I earned the trust and respect of almost all the citizens of the Lowcountry, and the valuable lessons I learned in patience, even temperament and compassion will go a long way toward helping me be a good Circuit Court Judge.
I hope the Judicial Merit Selection Committee will understand the reasons I chose to withdraw from my trial practice after 14 years of daily trial preparation and court appearances. Being widowed at 40, with children 8, 10 and 12, left me with few options regarding full-time courtroom work. Because of the personal need I felt to be available to my children through these difficult years, I chose to continue my public service on the County Council, which was 'part time' and continued to keep abreast of South Carolina and federal legal issues through reading and Continuing Legal Education seminars. I have never lost my love of the law and found these years to be very rewarding in that they offered me the time to read and study about the criminal justice system and strengthen my abilities in other areas. I developed a desire to improve my mediation skills and completed the certification necessary in South Carolina, and I believe those skills will also serve me well as a Judge.
I have, in reality, not only significant Courtroom expertise, but also significant life experience, which I know is mandatory for a good Judge. And I believe the reputation I have earned for truthfulness, fairness and patience speaks highly of my personal character. I promise each member of the Committee and all members of the Legislature that I will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of the office of Circuit Court Judge."
The Commission noted that, while Mr. Taylor has not actively practiced law the past eight years, his civic service as chairman of a county council and his outstanding grasp of legal issues as demonstrated by his performance on the Commission's objective measurements of legal knowledge and competency would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench. They found him qualified and nominated him to the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
Based on the Commission's investigation, the Commission found Judge Coltrane qualified statutorily with respect to the eligibility standards. However, Judge Coltrane did not achieve sufficient support from the Commission to carry his nomination as a judicial candidate forward to the General Assembly for consideration and election to the Circuit Court.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Judge Coltrane was born on September 16, 1956. He is 49 years old and a resident of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Judge Coltrane provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982. Judge Coltrane was admitted to the Virginia Bar in 1981.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
During the Commission's investigation concerns arose that Judge Coltrane had recently attended two local political party meetings. At the public hearing, the Commission raised the question as to why Judge Coltrane did not comply with the Canons of Judicial Conduct and he could not offer an explanation for his failure to comply.
Judge Coltrane demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Coltrane reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures
Judge Coltrane testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Coltrane testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Coltrane to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Coltrane described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) 2005 Master in Equity Bench Bar JCLE, October 14, 2005;
Annual Judicial Conference, August 2005;
(b) 2004 Annual Judicial Conference, August 2004;
Master-In-Equity Bench-Bar, October 2004;
Master-In-Equity Annual Meeting, February 2005.
(c) 2003 Annual Judicial Conference, August 2003;
Master-In-Equity Bench-Bar, October 2003;
Master-In-Equity Annual Meeting, February 2004.
(d) 2002 S.C. Municipal Attorney Meeting, December 2002;
(In 2002, I had 8.67 carryover MCLE hours, and .75 hours LEPR carry over hours from previous years.)
(e) 2001 S.C. Tort Law Update, September 2001;
Graduate School D.U.I., October 2001;
S.C. Municipal Attorney Meeting, December 2001."
Judge Coltrane reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"(a) I have delivered short talks (3 total) primarily related to home rule and fee/tax issues at both the Municipal Attorney's meeting and the County Attorney's meeting. These sessions occurred between 1993 and 1996.
(b) I was a part of a panel discussion group on government attorney ethics at the 1999 Municipal Attorney's meeting."
Judge Coltrane reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Coltrane did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Coltrane did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Coltrane has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Coltrane was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Coltrane reported that his last rating in Martindale-Hubbell prior to becoming Master-in-Equity for Beaufort County, South Carolina, in 2003, was "AV."
Judge Coltrane reported the following prior public offices he has held:
"(a) I was the appointed town attorney for the Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. I was appointed in June 1989, and served until I left the practice of law to become Master-in-Equity for Beaufort County, South Carolina, in June of 2003.
(b) I was also the appointed town attorney for the Town of Ridgeland South Carolina. I was appointed in March of 2000, and served until I left the practice of law to become Master-In-Equity for Beaufort County, South Carolina, in June of 2003."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Coltrane appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Coltrane appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Coltrane was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
He provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"June 1981 to January 31, 1988: I was employed as a legal assistant/law clerk and then as an attorney with the law firm of Herring and Meyer, P.A., on Hilton Head Island. My initial employment came prior to the time I took the South Carolina Bar Examination. In July of 1987, the firm name changed to Herring, Meyer and Coltrane, P.A. The practice was a general practice, and involved most areas of law. While employed by Herring and Meyer, P.A. (and then Herring, Meyer and Coltrane, P.A.), I handled civil litigation matters in the following areas: construction contracts, real estate contracts, insurance subrogation, debt collection, plaintiff's personal injury, divorce, worker's compensation, title clearance, construction arbitration, foreclosure, adversary proceedings in bankruptcy and real estate covenants and restrictions. I also handled a limited amount of residential real estate transactions. In addition to above, I also handled a limited amount of criminal defense work in the following areas: Burglary; Possession of Cocaine; Possession of Cocaine with intent to distribute; Simple Possession of Marijuana; Sales of Crack Cocaine; and Unlawful Pistol. I assisted James M. Herring in criminal cases involving charges of Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature and Murder.
On February 1, 1988, I became a sole practitioner. I was a part of a space sharing arrangement with four other attorneys, which was known as 'Griffis, Wilson, Walker and Coltrane, P.A.' In September of 1990, only two individuals remained in the space sharing arrangement, John L. Wilson and myself, and the firm was known as 'Wilson and Coltrane, P.A.' During this time I was appointed as the town attorney for the Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. I continued to handle general civil matters as set forth above, together with some criminal matters. In addition, I began to handle matters involved in municipal law, zoning matters and appeals as well as litigation involving the municipality. I also drafted ordinances and began to negotiate contracts for the acquisition of real estate by the Town, and to represent the Town in the closing of these transactions.
In September of 1995, my office space needs (as well as those of John L. Wilson) had changed to the point where the space sharing arrangement we had been involved in since 1988 was no longer viable. I acquired new space and began operating under the name 'Curtis L. Coltrane, P.C.' There was no material change in the practice with this change. In March of 2000, I was appointed as town attorney for the Town of Ridgeland, South Carolina, and in connection with that appointment, I have drafted ordinances, represented the Town in the negotiation and closing of real estate transactions, negotiated a developer agreement, represented the Town of Ridgeland, South Carolina, in litigation and eminent domain cases, and have prosecuted cases for the Town in its municipal court.
In May of 1999, I entered into a space sharing arrangement with Gregory M. Alford. Subsequently, in 2002, the firm became a professional corporation known as 'Coltrane, Alford & Wilkins, P.C.,' with the addition of John L. Wilkins as a named member. There was no material change in the nature of my practice with these changes.
In May of 2003, I left the practice of law to become the Master-in-Equity for Beaufort County, South Carolina."
Judge Coltrane provided the following information relating to his experience in criminal and civil matters:
"Criminal Matters: In my private practice, my work was concentrated on the civil side. Over the course of my practice I did represent numerous criminal defendants in cases involving the following charges: Burglary; Possession of Cocaine; Possession of Cocaine with intent to distribute; Simple Possession of Marijuana; Sales of Crack Cocaine and Unlawful Pistol. These cases were largely the result of appointments by the Circuit Court, however, some were clients who retained me. I tried one felony case, that being on a charge of Sales of Crack Cocaine, which resulted in an acquittal. The other General Sessions cases were ultimately resolved through pleas or dismissals of the charges. I also represented criminal defendants in Post Conviction Relief matters. In the last five years of my private practice, my only work in criminal court was as a prosecutor for the Town of Ridgeland, South Carolina. In that capacity, I prosecuted cases involving charges of: driving under the influence; simple possession of marijuana; criminal domestic violence; trespassing after notice; public drunkenness; and assault and violations of various town ordinances. As Master-In-Equity for Beaufort County, South Carolina, my jurisdiction was strictly civil. However, on February 4, 2005, the Honorable Jean H. Toal, Chief Justice, appointed me as Special Circuit Judge for Beaufort County, South Carolina, to preside over guilty pleas, bond hearings and probation revocations, and other matters. In that capacity, I have presided over General Sessions Court and have accepted guilty pleas in various cases involving possessory drug charges; assaults/resisting arrest; contributing to the delinquency of a minor; and burglary. I have also conducted bond hearings and have heard motions to reduce bonds.
I recognize practice in the area of criminal law has not made up a large part of my experience. I am not wholly without experience in it, however, and my experience in representing criminal defendants, prosecuting cases in municipal court, and in hearing pleas and motions in General Sessions Court gives me a foundation that I can build upon. I plan to address this by continuing my efforts in General Sessions Court as authorized by the appointment by the Chief Justice, and study of both the relevant statutes, court rules, and appellate decisions of this State and of the United States. To the extent that time allows, I also plan to observe experienced judges trying criminal cases. I would also take advantage of continuing legal education opportunities offered through the South Carolina Bar and otherwise. I am confident that through these efforts, I can become a competent and productive member of the South Carolina judiciary in both the Courts of Common Pleas and General Sessions.
Civil Matters: In the course of my private practice, I represented both plaintiffs and defendants, individuals, corporate entities, and municipalities in civil litigation in all Courts of the State of South Carolina and in the United States District Court. I did some work before administrative agencies and in the Administrative Law Judge Division. The types of cases I handled were disputes involving construction contracts, real estate contracts, business sale contracts, fraudulent conveyances, insurance subrogation, debt collection, plaintiff's personal injury, divorce, worker's compensation, title clearance, construction arbitration, foreclosure, adversary proceedings in bankruptcy, real estate covenants and restrictions, enforcement of zoning ordinances, D.H.E.C. permitting cases, cases involving construction of state statutes, enforcement of foreign judgments, commercial ejectment proceedings, uniform commercial code/bank deposits, declaratory judgments involving rights under contracts, deeds easements and statutes, fifth and fourteenth amendment takings, and eminent domain. In addition to the litigation, I negotiated land purchase contracts whereby the Town of Hilton Head Island purchase more than one hundred million dollars of real property; drafted ordinances; participated in the refinance of the Town of Hilton Head Island's debt through the issuance of 'Certificates of Participation;' negotiated a developer agreement on behalf of the Town of Ridgeland; represented individuals in the purchase and sale of residential real estate; represented individuals in the purchase and sale of businesses, and closed commercial loans and issued title insurance policies in connection with the purchase of residential and commercial real estate."
Judge Coltrane reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to his appointment to the bench as follows:
"(a) Federal: I handled two cases in cases in Federal Court in the last five years of my private practice. These cases resulted in approximately 8-10 appearances in Federal Court, primarily for motions. Both cases were settled and not tried.
(b) State: I handled numerous cases in state court in the last five years of my private practice, resulting in appearances in courts at all levels from municipal court to the Supreme Court. I would hesitate to guess at the total number of court appearances in state court in the last five years of my private practice, however, there have been a considerable number. The frequency was no less than monthly, often more than once per week."
Judge Coltrane reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to appointment to the bench as follows:
"In the last five years of my private practice, my practice was divided as follows:
(a) Civil: In excess of ninety (90%) percent;
(b) Criminal: Less than five (5%) percent. Over the last five years of my private practice, the only criminal work I was engaged in was the prosecution of municipal court cases for The Town of Ridgeland, South Carolina.
(c) Domestic: Less than five (5%) percent."
Judge Coltrane reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to appointment to the bench as follows:
"(a) Jury: Ten (10%) to fifteen (15%) percent;
(b) Non-jury: Eighty-five (85%) to ninety (90%) percent."
Judge Coltrane reported: "Typically, I served as sole counsel. In cases involving both tort and other claims against the Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, I served as co-counsel with attorneys representing the Town through the State Insurance Reserve Fund. I also served as co-counsel with attorneys from the S.C.D.H.E.C. - O.C.R.M., in permitting cases in the Administrative Law Judge Division and Circuit Court; and in some instances I served as co-counsel with Gregory M. Alford."
The following is Judge Coltrane's account of his most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Brady Development Co., Inc., v. The Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. I was involved in the trial of this case with co-counsel, James S. Gibson, Esq., of the Beaufort County Bar. This was one suit of approximately 60 suits brought against the Town arising from a failed subdivision within the Town known as 'Indigo Run.' The case alleged causes of action sounding in contract and tort. The Tort claim was defended under the provisions of the S.C. Tort Claims Act by James S. Gibson. The contract claim was not insured, and I defended the same on behalf of the Town. The case was significant because the claims asserted in all of the cases exceeded five million dollars. The case was tried in October of 1991 before the Honorable Luke N. Brown and a jury. At the conclusion of a week-long trial, Judge Brown directed a verdict in favor of the Town on the contract claim which I defended. The negligence claim was submitted to the jury, and resulted in a verdict against the Town. The Town appealed (I was not counsel on the appeal), and the jury verdict was reversed in Brady Development Co., Inc. v. Town Of Hilton Head Island, 312 S.C. 73, 439 S.E.2d 266(S.C. 1993).
(b) O'Laughlin v. Windham, et al. This case was brought against the Ministerial Recorder of the Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, under a complaint alleging a tort by the ministerial recorder for improperly issuing an arrest warrant. I was co-counsel in the case with Marvin C. Jones, Esq., of Walterboro, South Carolina. The case was dismissed just prior to trial by the Honorable R. Markley Dennis, Jr. The dismissal was appealed, and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in O'Laughlin v. Windham, et al., 330 S.C. 379, 498 S.E.2d 689 (S.C. App. 1998). The case is significant because the ruling of the Trial Judge, as affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, was that common law judicial immunity was not supplanted by the provisions of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.
(c) Williams v. Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, 311 S.C. 417, 429 S.E.2d 802 (S.C. 1993). I handled this matter both at trial and on appeal. This case was significant because it resulted in an opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court stating that 'Dillon's Rule' of construction was no longer applicable in South Carolina.
(d) Town of Hilton Head Island, et al. v. Coalition of Expressway Opponents, et al., 307 S.C. 449, 456, 415 S.E.2d 801, 805 (S.C. 1992). I handled this matter both at trial and on appeal. The case is significant because it was a case of novel impression in South Carolina, and interpreted the Initiative and Referendum statutes to provide that a local government is not obliged to conduct a referendum on an initiated ordinance when the ordinance is facially defective.
(e) Hospitality Association of South Carolina v. Town of Hilton Head Island, et al., 464 S.E.2d 113, 320 S.C. 219 (S.C. 1995) I handled this case both at trial and on appeal. This case was significant because the opinion issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court interpreted the State Constitution and statutes to provide for expanded the ability of local governments to adopt special purpose fees.
(f) City of Hardeeville and Town of Ridgeland v. Jasper County, 340 S.C. 39, 530 S.E.2d 374 (S.C. 2000). This was an action brought in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, seeking a determination that ordinances adopted by Jasper County, South Carolina, improperly sought to appropriate accommodations and hospitality taxes levied by the City of Hardeeville, South Carolina, and the Town of Ridgeland, South Carolina. This case was significant because if firmly established the rights of municipalities and counties under the statutes creating local accommodations and hospitality taxes."
The following is Judge Coltrane's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (S.C. 1990).
(b) Long Cove Club Associates, L.P. v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 458 S.E.2d 757, 319 S.C. 30 (S.C. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 674, 516 US 1029, 133 Led.2d 523.
(c) Wiedemann v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 326 S.C. 573, 486 S.E.2d 263 (S.C.App. 1997); Wiedemann v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 330 S.C. 532, 500 S.E.2d 783, (S.C. 1998); Wiedemann v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 344 S.C. 233, 542 S.E.2d 752, (S.C.App. 2001).
(d) Bensch v. Davidson, 354 S.C. 173, 580 S.E.2d 128 (S.C. 2003).
(e) South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, Port Royal Plantation and the Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, 354 S.C. 585, 582 S.E.2d 410 (S.C. 2003). In this appeal, I was co-counsel with Mary D. Shahid and Leslie S. Riley, attorneys for S.C.D.H.E.C. - O.C.R.M."
Judge Coltrane reported that he had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Judge Coltrane reported that he was appointed Master-in-Equity for Beaufort County, South Carolina, and commenced work on June 30, 2003. He has continued through the present.
Judge Coltrane provided the following list of significant orders or opinions:
"Each of the following are cases in which I personally wrote the order after conducting either hearings or a trial, and my own independent research on the issues involved. While the ultimate significance of these cases remains to be seen, the orders do show the breadth of the issues that have come before me.
(a) Gay v. City of Beaufort, 364 S.C. 252, 612 S.E.2d 467 (S.C.App. 2005). Order and Opinion of South Carolina Court of Appeals attached. This is an appeal from a decision of the City of Beaufort to revoke a license relating to tours in the Beaufort Historic District. The decision was affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
(b) Breedlove, et al. v. Cramer, et al., Beaufort County, South Carolina, Civil Action Number 04-CP-07-2251. This is an order issued on a motion made by the Defendants to Stay All Civil Proceedings during the pendency of a related criminal action. I denied the motion, and this Order has been appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. It has not been heard or decided as of this time.
(c) Alexander's Land Company, L.L.C., et al., v. M&M&K Corporation, et al., 01-CP-07-1925. This is an order issued in a complicated business dispute, involving competing claims for declaratory judgment as to rights and liabilities under a contract, breach of contract, and violation of S.C. Code Ann. 39-5-10, se seq., with numerous legal and equitable defenses asserted. This order has been appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. It has not been heard or decided as of this time.
(d) Wynn v. Hatfield, et al., Civil Action Number 04-CP-07-1464. This was an election dispute involving a question of whether a petition candidate filed his petition within the time frame dictated by statute. This Order was not appealed.
(e) Wogan, et al. v. Kunze, et al., Civil Action Number 02-CP-07-1709. This is an Order containing rulings on the novel issue of whether or not a private cause of action exists for alleged violations of the Medicare Act, as well as other matters. This Order was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and was heard on September 13, 2005. On September 26, 2005, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the order."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Coltrane's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Coltrane to "meet the established criteria of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and to be qualified for election to the circuit court."
Judge Coltrane is married to Susan Darlene Coltrane. He has two children.
Judge Coltrane reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Virginia State Bar. October 1981 to present. No offices.
(b) South Carolina Bar. April 1982 to present. No offices."
Judge Coltrane additionally reported:
"It has been a privilege to serve as the Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge for Beaufort County, South Carolina. I believe I have been a productive member of our bench, and that my service has been a benefit to the citizens of Beaufort County. I have tried contested, non-jury cases, many of which have involved multi-day trials, and have written and entered orders in a large number of them. The orders I have written have covered a variety of issues such as real estate covenants and restrictions, contested title clearance, boundary disputes, determination of sovereign grants, worker's compensation appeals, whether petition candidates properly filed election papers, appeals from inferior courts, construction litigation, all manner of contract actions, frauds and forgeries, consumer actions, and administrative appeals from state agencies. In addition, I have heard and disposed of literally hundreds of uncontested non-jury matters, such as foreclosures, title-clearance actions, and the like. I have also managed the motions roster for Beaufort County since becoming Master-in-Equity, and, on average, hear or otherwise dispose of one hundred to two hundred motions each month. In connection with the motions, I have written orders covering such diverse topics as defaults under Rule 55 and Rule 60 S.C.R.C.P., summary judgments in tort and contract actions, enforcement of foreign judgments, compelling of arbitration, and a wide variety of discovery and evidentiary issues. I independently research the matters that come before me and work hard to make certain that the decisions that I make are supported by the laws of this State and the record made in the case. I will do my utmost to bring the same level of dedication and industry to a position on the Circuit Bench."
The Commission found that Judge Coltrane has ably served this State as Master-in-Equity and by special designation to the Circuit Court. He was found qualified by the Commission to serve on the Circuit Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
Based on the Commission's investigation, the Commission found Mr. Johnson qualified statutorily with respect to the eligibility standards. However, Mr. Johnson did not achieve sufficient support from the Commission to carry his nomination as a judicial candidate forward to the General Assembly for consideration and election to the Circuit Court.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Mr. Johnson was born on October 10, 1949. He is 56 years old and a resident of Hardeeville, South Carolina. Mr. Johnson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Johnson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Johnson testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Johnson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Johnson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Annual SCTLA Convention:
(b) Annual Solicitor's Convention;
(c) Annual Chicago Title Seminar;
(d) Miscellaneous CLE credits from Association of County attorneys and Attorneys Information Exchange Group."
Mr. Johnson reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Mr. Johnson reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Johnson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Johnson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Johnson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Johnson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Johnson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Mr. Johnson reported that he has held the following public offices:
"Jasper County Election Commission;
Beaufort Jasper Higher Education Commission."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Johnson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Johnson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Johnson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.
He provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Worked part time for two firms in Allendale between graduation and admission in 1975.
Opened solo practice in Hardeeville in 1975, and practiced there until present. My practice in Hardeeville was modeled on what I perceived as the way my rural elders practiced. This entailed cradle-to-grave service to clients who couldn't pay much, if at all, who would reward me when actionable tragedy struck. This worked just well enough to perpetuate itself. This meant handling a huge variety of issues in a huge variety of forums. Because of an anomaly in the way appointments worked, I handled about 25% of all appointed cases, of any kind.
Over the years I attracted increasingly larger and more complex cases, but never managed to simply turn away the more trivial matters. Most of these cases I handled substantially alone, but it has been my privilege to be co-counsel with Dan Speights, Lee Bowers, Terry Richardson, Rutledge Young, and other leaders in the profession. I have recently had the joy of being associated by younger lawyers such a Bree Routman, with whom I tried two different medical cases in Aiken County.
I have for most of my career represented political entities in a host of matters, usually on the defense side. I have aggressively pursued the Jasper County Port."
Mr. Johnson further reported:
"In this past five years I have tried numerous jury and non-jury cases. As County Attorney I litigated over our hospital, our industrial park, defended several employment law cases, participated in the port litigation, and probably a dozen other unremarkable matters. As Assistant Solicitor I handled a plethora of cases of all types. Actual trials include at least two burglaries, one child molestation, two or more armed robberies, three murders, one felony DUI, and assorted assaults, drugs, blue-light and other lesser matters. I listed myself on the Dorchester County criminal appointment list, but was only appointed on some PCR cases.
Historically, I have defended a huge number of criminal cases mostly due to the application of the 'old' appointment rules. This included at least two capital cases ending in pleas, and one that was tried to a verdict, twice. I have tried two Federal criminal cases to a verdict, and handled a few pleas in Federal Court.
On the civil side, in the last 5 years, other than as County Attorney, I have tried a number of automobile cases, two medical malpractice cases, a trip-and-fall case, and a number of non-jury cases involving election contests, administrative appeals, business cases, and property issues. One interesting and time-consuming non-jury case involved title to an island. In my career, I have defended one or more of most kind of cases, usually for uninsured parties. Insurance companies are biased against small firms and small towns, so I have rarely been hired by an insurance company, other than a title insurance company.
As County Attorney for a financially beleaguered county, I handled many cases, including cases that should really have had someone more specialized in a certain area. However, I used to occasionally be asked not to deposit County checks until the County's balance allowed, so seeking a specialist was not an option."
Mr. Johnson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: Estimate once every 3 months;
(b) State: Estimate at least once weekly."
Mr. Johnson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 60%;
(b) Criminal: 20%;
(c) Domestic: 0%."
Mr. Johnson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 60%;
(b) Non-jury: 40%."
Mr. Johnson reported that he serves "Most often as sole counsel, but quite often as chief counsel, and occasionally as associate counsel. I have recently come to enjoy serving as back-up to several young lawyers, including my son."
The following is Mr. Johnson's account of five of his most significant litigated matters:
"(a) GDOT v. Jasper County, 353 S.C. 631, 586 S.E.2d 853, S.C., Sep. 15, 2003 involving condemnation of Port site;
(b) Traylor v. Shad, et al. Involved title to island in Savannah River, (settled) large number of legal issues.
(c) State v. Roger Bostick. Prosecution murder, using circumstantial evidence, including DNA.
(d) State v. Richard Charles Johnson. (twice) 293 S.C. 321, 360 S.E.2d 317 (1987), and 306 S.C. 119, 410 S.E.2d 547 (1991) Defense of capital case.
(e) U.S. v. Farron Tucker. Involved policeman tried on ATF charges and acquitted on grounds of entrapment."
The following is Mr. Johnson's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Cleland v. Westvaco Corp., 314 S.C. 508, 431 S.E.2d 264, S.C. App., May 17, 1993.
(b) Getsinger v. Midlands Orthopaedic Profit Sharing Plan, 327 S.C. 424, 489 S.E.2d 223, S.C. App., June 16, 1997.
(c) GDOT v. Jasper County, 355 S.C. 631, 586 S.E.2d 853, S.C., Sept. 15, 2003.
(d) Pratt v. Morris Roofing, Inc., 357 S.C. 619, 594 S.E.2d 272, S.C., Mar. 15, 2004.
(e) Jasper County Tax Assessor v. Westvaco Corp., 305 S.C. 346, 409 S.E.2d 333, S.C., Aug. 12, 1991."
The following is Mr. Johnson's account of criminal appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) State v. Dewitt Williams, (unpublished opinion).
(b) U.S. v. Winstead, 955 F.2d, (Table, Text in WESTLAW), Unpublished Disposition, 1992 WL 24215, 4th Cir. (S.C.), Feb 13, 1992."
Mr. Johnson stated that the Attorney General handles appeals for the Solicitor's Office, and the Office of Appellate Defense handles indigent appeals.
Mr. Johnson reported that he has served as Special Referee.
The following is Mr. Johnson's account of five of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Smith Quiet Title dealt with alleged foster children treated as children for 2 generations.
(b) Barbee v. Shearin, Unpublished Opinion, (2002-UP-261) (2002).
(c) Pickert v. Pastene, CA No. 01-CP-27-104.
(d) Hanna v. Hanna dealt with equitable partition of a large farm in a trust with a lake; sub-issue of whether an alleged homosexual might leave children.
(e) Martin v. McGarvey dealt with race-notice issues."
Mr. Johnson reported that he was an unsuccessful candidate for House District 122 in 1996.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Johnson's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Johnson to not meet the established criteria of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The following reasons were given by the Committee:
(a) "During the interview with the Committee, Mr. Johnson's answers were too long and not directed at the questions asked in a precise, cogent manner. Specifically, the Committee is concerned about Mr. Johnson's lack of full candor concerning his involvement with several lawsuits and the specifics of the lawsuits referenced in his Personal Data Questionnaire.
(b) The Committee still has concerns, after Mr. Johnson's interview, about his written responses regarding his perception of insurance companies' bias against small firms and small towns, as well as his response relating to the Ports Authority."
Thus, the Committee did not recommend him for election to the circuit court.
Mr. Johnson responded to the Lowcountry Citizens Committee Report by stating that he attempted to provide thorough answers to the questions that were asked in order to be completely honest with the Committee. He believed that he was fully up-front about his involvement with several lawsuits referenced in his Personal Data Questionnaire. Mr. Johnson also explained that his comment regarding insurance companies was not intended to demonstrate a bias against these companies; but instead, to explain that insurance companies rarely hire small town attorneys, and that is why he has not handled many of their cases. Likewise, Mr. Johnson explained that his comment relating to the Ports Authority was not intended to demonstrate a bias against the Ports Authority; but instead, to explain how he had worked hard for his clients and community projects.
Mr. Johnson is married to Wanda Jones Johnson. He has two children.
Mr. Johnson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Association;
(b) American Bar Association;
(c) American Trial Lawyer's Association;
(d) Attorney's Information Exchange Group;
(e) Allendale-Hampton-Jasper Public Defender Board;
(f) South Carolina Bar Fee Dispute Commission (present Chairman);
(g) South Carolina Architectural Licensing Board."
Mr. Johnson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Jasper County Chamber of Commerce;
(b) Hardeeville Chamber of Commerce;
(c) Charleston Maritime Association;
(d) South Carolina Bank and Trust Advisory Board;
(e) Ducks Unlimited."
Mr. Johnson additionally reported:
"I cannot think of any area of the law that I have not litigated in some way, directly or as a collateral issue. I am not spectacularly successful in a financial sense, because I never learned to 'just say no' to a client who could pass Rule 11. I was one of the chief troublemakers behind the current Rule on appointment of attorneys, and the financing of capital case defense."
The Commission noted that Mr. Johnson has thirty years of experience handling a variety of legal issues as a solo practitioner as well as from serving as a county attorney. They found Mr. Johnson qualified to serve on the Circuit Court bench.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Williamson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Williamson was born on April 18, 1965. She is 40 years old and a resident of Greer, South Carolina. Ms. Williamson provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1992.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Williamson.
Ms. Williamson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Williamson reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Williamson testified she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Williamson testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. Williamson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Williamson described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"September 23, 2005 S.C. Bar Hot Tips Coolest Domestic Lawyers;
January 21, 2005 S.C. Bar Family Law Section;
December 4, 2004 S.C. Bar Oath;
December 3, 2004 S.C. Bar Reversals, Remands & Affirms;
September 24, 2004 S.C. Bar Hot Tips Coolest Domestic Lawyers;
January 23, 2004 S.C. Bar Family Law Section Meeting;
December 5, 2003 Greenville County Bar Association CLE Seminar;
September 20, 2002 Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Lawyers;
August 1, 2002 S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;
April 19, 2002 S.C. Bar Cool Tips Hot Domestic Lawyers;
September 21, 2001 S.C. Bar Hot Tips Best Domestic Lawyers;
August 2, 2001 S.C. Trial Lawyers 2001 Annual Convention;
April 27, 2001 S.C. Bar Cool Tips Hot Domestic Lawyers;
February 16, 2001 NBI Child Custody and Shared Parenting;
January 26, 2001 S.C. Bar Family Law Section;
August 3, 2000 S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;
May 19, 2000 S.C. Bar Cool Tips Hot Domestic Lawyers;
January 21, 2000 S.C. Bar Family Law Section;
December 17, 1999 Lorman Children's Records Law in South Carolina;
May 7, 1999 S.C. Bar Cool Tips Hot Domestic Lawyers."
Ms. Williamson reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) September 24, 2004, Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners, 59(e) Motions;
(b) January 23, 2004, Family Court Task Force Panel Discussion;
(c) April 19, 2002, Cool Tips from Hottest Domestic Practitioners, Equitable Division;
(d) September 15, 2000, Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Practitioners
The Hague Treaty;
(e) May 19, 2000, Cool Tips from the Hottest Domestic Practitioners;
(f) April 28, 2000, S.C. Family Law Practice for Paralegals, Handling Custody Disputes;
(g) December 17, 1999, Children's Records Law in South Carolina Adoption Records."
Ms. Williamson reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Williamson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Williamson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Williamson has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Williamson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Williamson reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6) Physical Health:
Ms. Williamson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Ms. Williamson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Williamson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992.
She provided the following account of legal experience since graduation from law school:
"I graduated from law school in May 1992, and my son, Capers, was born in October 1992. After law school graduation, I worked part-time as a law clerk/paralegal at Harris & Graves, Columbia, South Carolina and the Law Offices of Betty Gambrell Cobb, Columbia, South Carolina. In January 1993, I accepted my first practicing position as an Associate Attorney at the Law Offices of King & Vernon, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina. I worked primarily for Kermit S. King, focusing on private family court litigation. In January 1997, my son and I relocated to Greenville, South Carolina, and I accepted a position at Wilkins & Madden, P.A., where I continued my family court practice. I was promoted to Partner at Wilkins & Madden, P.A. in March 2000. I have devoted my entire legal career to the domestic relations practice."
Ms. Williamson reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: I have not practiced in federal court in the past five years.
(b) State: I have appeared in Family Court, on average, 1 to 3 times per week in the past five (5) years."
Ms. Williamson reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 0%;
(b) Criminal: 0%;
(c) Domestic: 100%."
Ms. Williamson reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 0%;
(b) Non-jury: 100%."
Ms. Williamson provided that she most often served as "chief counsel, and during the past two (2) to three (3) years, I most often have served as sole counsel."
The following is Ms. Williamson's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Rollins v. Rollins. I represented the Wife in this matter, and litigated this matter for two (2) days. Wife obtained a divorce on the ground of desertion, which often times is overlooked as a fault-based divorce ground. I believe the ground of desertion benefited my client in obtaining the best possible result on the issues of alimony, equitable division, and attorney fees. The public policy of this State is to preserve and protect marriage, and I believe by proving the divorce ground of desertion, we were able to impress upon the Court the importance of preserving and protecting marriage and the harmful impact divorce had on this innocent spouse and the children of this marriage. This matter also involved valuation issues surrounding Husband's business interest, and both parties used the testimony of qualified experts on the business valuation issue.
(b) Leonard v. Leonard. I represented the Father in this custody action, and litigated this matter for three (3) days. This litigation commenced in mid 1995, and the final merits hearing occurred in mid 1998, three (3) years later. Father did not have pendente lite custody, but was awarded sole custody at the final merits hearing. I believe this case was significant because often times in private custody actions the litigant who receives pendente lite custody has a clear advantage at the final merits hearing, especially when that parent has retained pendente lite custody for three (3) years. This case involved issues relative to 'parental alienation' type behavior from the opposing party, and we were able to impress upon the Court the impact that this conduct can have on children, even though the conduct often is extremely subtle and difficult to demonstrate.
(c) Zdunich v. Cortina. I represented the Mother in this post-divorce modification of custody action, and litigated this matter for five (5) days. Mother was successful in receiving an award of primary custody of her children, after having lost custody in the original divorce action. This matter involved the application of language from a prior court order defining 'change in circumstance.' We were able to demonstrate that the specific facts, which occurred subsequent to the prior order, constituted a change in circumstance as defined by the prior order, thereby allowing the Court to apply the applicable factors in making a custody determination. This trial involved the expert testimony of two (2) psychologists. This trial involved child support by using imputed income to Father, who was recently self-employed at the time of trial.
(d) Ebert v. Ebert, 320 S.C. 331, 465 S.E.2d 121 (1995 Ct.App.). This case involved the application and interpretation of the parties' settlement agreement, which was approved and adopted as the Order of the Court. I served as co-counsel with Mr. Kermit King during the trial and appeal of this matter. Although we were unsuccessful in having either the trial court or the appellate court accept our legal theory, we were successful in obtaining relief for our client. This matter was significant to me as a young attorney in learning to develop theories and themes for relief. Had the appellate court not remanded this matter to the lower court for a date certain by which the former marital residence was to be sold, my client still could be paying his former spouse contrary to the intent of their agreement.
(e) Thigpen v. Thigpen. I represented Wife in this matter, which involved Husband's claim that her pre-marital assets had been transmuted into marital assets, or, in the alternative, that he had acquired a special equity in these assets (a home and business). We were successful in protecting the pre-marital character of both of these assets, with no transmutation or special equity. This case was significant because it involved substantial tracing of funds throughout the marriage to defend Husband's allegations of transmutation and special equity."
Ms. Williamson reported the following regarding a civil appeal she has personally handled:
"I have not focused my practice on appellate work; and, accordingly, I have only been involved in the Ebert appeal. I have represented clients in two (2) other appeals; however, the cases settled during the pendency of the appeal as we were in the brief writing process.
(a) Ebert v. Ebert, 320 S.C. 331, 465 S.E.2d 121 (1995 Ct.App.)."
Ms. Williamson reported that she had not personally handled a criminal appeal.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Williamson's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Williamson to be "a most competent lawyer. Her qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Ms. Williamson is a widow. She was married to the late Thomas H. Williamson III. She has one child.
Ms. Williamson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Greenville County Bar;
(b) South Carolina Bar;
(c) American Bar Association."
Ms. Williamson provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Treasurer/Board Member Greenville Little League;
(b) Board Member/Former Finance Committee Chairperson South Carolina Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities;
(c) Leadership Greenville Program Class XXVII;
(d) Volunteer Juvenile Probation Officer Greenville County;
(e) Sunday School Teacher Christ Church Episcopal."
Ms. Williamson also stated: "I am sincere in my interest of helping litigants find a better path than the one which brought them to Family Court. I believe all litigants, no matter their circumstances, deserve my respect, attention, and the opportunity to be heard and understood. I believe the Family Court bench can provide a unique opportunity for me to use my gift of helping others by showing them a better path. I have a deep love and respect for our judicial system, and I appreciate the consideration of this Commission."
The Commission found that Ms. Williamson was an eminently qualified candidate and her compassion would serve her well on the Family Court Bench. The Commission found that she was qualified and nominated her to the Family Court.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Anderson since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as an Administrative Law Court judge.
Judge Anderson was born on October 13, 1959. He is 46 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Anderson reported that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson stated that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) November 10, 2000, 3rd Annual Southern States Seminar;
(b) September 29, 2000, Tort Law Update;
(c) November 10, 2000, 10th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C.;
(d) December 15, 2000, Top Ten Things You Need to Know;
(e) February 23, 2001, Objections at Trial 2001;
(f) September 21, 2001, Administrative Law Seminar;
(g) October 10, 2001, Does a Difference Make a Difference?;
(h) September 20, 2002, Administrative & Regulatory Law Assoc. Seminar;
(i) October 11, 2002, Appellate Practice in S.C.;
(j) May 2, 2003, The CON Contested Case;
(k) September 9, 2003, Finding Answers in the Administrative Law Jungle, Issues in Administrative Law;
(l) October 24, 2003, Court Enforced Secrecy;
(m) November 7, 2003, Ethics for Government Lawyers;
(n) October 1, 2004, Navigating the River of Administrative Law Practice;
(o) November 19, 2004, 14th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C."
Judge Anderson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) S.C. CLE - 'Hiring and Firing' (Lectured on employment law);
(b) S.C. CLE - 'Ethics Act' (Lectured on the Ethics Act);
(c) Supreme Court Staff - Lectured on the Ethics Act;
(d) Bridge the Gap - Administrative Law;
(e) SCARLA - S.C. Const., Art. I, Section 22;
(f) S.C. CLE - Does a Difference Make a Difference?"
Judge Anderson reported that he has published the following:
"(a) 'A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates,' Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980.
(b) 'An Overview of Practice and Procedure Before the Administrative Law Judge Division,' South Carolina Trial Lawyer, Summer 1996."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Anderson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Anderson further reported he has held the following public office:
"Appointed Assistant Attorney General 1985 to January 1995."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.
Judge Anderson provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"I began my legal career at the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. My initial responsibilities at the AG's office were the extradition functions in the Criminal Division. Afterwards, I was transferred to the Criminal Prosecution Section, where I prosecuted criminal cases, as well as maintained my extradition duties. While in the Prosecution Section, I was also assigned the position as Counsel to the State Ethics Commission.
With the passage of the Statewide Grand Jury Act, I occupied two offices. One was located in the Prosecution Section while the other was in the Grand Jury Section. Once the Grand Jury was firmly established, I returned to the Government and Civil Litigation Division/Prosecution Section. There I resumed all of my original duties with the addition of the following being added over time:
Committee Attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee;
Prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board; and Periodically handling Medical Board Prosecutions, Attorney General Opinions and Criminal Appeals.
On February 1, 1995, I began serving as an Administrative Law Judge. In that capacity I have handled a myriad of civil trial and appellate issues."
Judge Anderson reported he held the following judicial office:
"I was elected by the General Assembly to serve as an Administrative Law Judge, February 1, 1995 and have been serving continuously since that date.
Administrative Law Judges preside over hearings, render decisions and issue orders in a broad range of administrative cases involving governmental agencies and private parties. The jurisdiction of the Division includes cases involving health, child care, environmental, natural resource, insurance, alcoholic beverage, and tax issues, as well as other licensing matters. Additionally, pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), the ALC now hears appeals from final decisions of the Department of Corrections in 'non-collateral' matters, i.e., matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. The ALJs also possess certain equitable and contempt powers."
The following is Judge Anderson's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 99-ALJ-07-0290-CC.
(b) McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001) (en banc). Holding reviewed in Sullivan v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003).
(c) Paris Mountain Utilities, Inc., et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Docket No. 01-ALJ-07-0462-CC.
(d) Providence Hospital v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and Palmetto Richland Memorial Hospital, Docket No. 02-ALJ-07-0155-CC.
(e) Anonymous Physician v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Medical Examiners, Docket No. 05-ALJ-11-0029-IJ."
Judge Anderson reported he was an unsuccessful candidate as follows:
"(a) Administrative Law Judge, Seat 3 (February 23, 1994);
(b) Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 3 (May 24, 2000). I was found qualified and nominated but withdrew prior to election;
(c) Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 9 (January 16, 2003). I was found qualified but not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Anderson to be "a qualified and highly regarded judge. The Committee wholeheartedly approved of his candidacy for continued service on the Administrative Law Court."
Judge Anderson is married to Linda Corley Anderson. He has no children.
Judge Anderson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"South Carolina Bar - November 1984."
Judge Anderson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"Shandon Baptist Church."
The Commission commented that Judge Anderson conveys an excellent knowledge of the law and has ably served as an administrative law judge. They found Judge Anderson qualified for re-election to the Administrative Law Court.
The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:
Costa M. Pleicones Supreme Court, Seat 2
Thomas E. Huff Court of Appeals, Seat 8
Ralph Ferrell Cothran, Jr. Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Wm. Thomas Geddings, Jr. Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
George C. "Buck" James, Jr. Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
J. Michael Baxley Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
L. Casey Manning Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Roger L. Couch Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
James W. Johnson, Jr. Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Daniel F. Pieper Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Alexander S. Macaulay Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Wm. Paul Keesley Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Kellum W. Allen Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
R. Knox McMahon Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Lisa Lee Smith Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
John C. Few Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Perry M. Buckner III Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Diane P. DeWitt Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Carmen Tevis Mullen Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Thomas C. Taylor Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Rochelle Y. Williamson Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Ralph K. "Tripp" Anderson III Administrative Law Court, Seat 6
Respectfully submitted,
Senator James H. Ritchie, Jr. Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr.
Senator Robert Ford Representative Doug Smith
Senator Ray Cleary Representative Fletcher N. Smith
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Professor John P. Freeman Mr. Richard S. Fisher
Received as information.
On motion of Rep. WITHERSPOON, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4451 (Word version) -- Rep. Witherspoon: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE SEPTEMBER 2, 2006, AS THE BEACH, BOOGIE AND BARBEQUE FESTIVAL TO BE HELD AT THE MYRTLE BEACH AIR FORCE BASE IN HORRY COUNTY AND DECLARE THE EVENT AS AN OFFICIAL BARBEQUE CHAMPIONSHIP IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
Whereas, 2006 marks the first annual celebration of the Beach, Boogie and Barbeque Festival to be held Labor Day weekend, in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, sponsored by the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce; and
Whereas, the purpose of the Beach, Boogie and Barbeque Festival is to attract visitors to the Myrtle Beach area and promote healthy competition amongst skilled barbeque chefs; and
Whereas, this festival is open to all South Carolina residents and visitors; and
Whereas, some of the finest barbeque teams from throughout South Carolina and the rest of the nation will compete in this event; and
Whereas, South Carolina is a state known for the exceptional quality of its barbeque; and
Whereas, this event will be promoted as an Official South Carolina Barbeque Championship, as recognized by the South Carolina Barbeque Association.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, recognizes September 2, 2006, as the Beach, Boogie and Barbeque Festival to be held at the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base in Horry County and declares the event as an official barbeque championship in South Carolina.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Brad Dean, President & CEO of the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4452 (Word version) -- Reps. Witherspoon, Bales, Hardwick, Duncan, Frye, Leach, Vaughn, McCraw, Anthony, Delleney, Hosey, Lucas, M. A. Pitts, Scarborough and D. C. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-31-210, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SELF-DEFENSE ACT OF 1996, SO AS TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF HANDGUN EDUCATIONAL COURSE HOURS A PERSON MUST OBTAIN TO SATISFY THE "PROOF OF TRAINING" REQUIREMENT CONTAINED IN THE ACT.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary
H. 4455 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 146, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE SCHOOL FACILITIES BOND ACT, BY ADDING SECTION 59-146-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 AND CONTINUING FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR FISCAL YEARS THEREAFTER, AN ADDITIONAL THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN SCHOOL FACILITIES BONDS MAY BE ISSUED, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THESE BONDS MUST BE ALLOCATED TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS BASED ON A FORMULA WHICH GIVES PRIORITY CONSIDERATION TO DISTRICTS WITH HIGHER PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE OR REDUCED PRICED LUNCHES, THE RELATIVE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF A DISTRICT TO FUND NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES OR IMPROVE EXISTING FACILITIES, AND REMAINING CAPACITY OF A DISTRICT TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
H. 4456 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrison and Haley: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 50 TO TITLE 23 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMESTOPPERS ACT, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CRIMESTOPPER ORGANIZATIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS OF VARIOUS TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER, TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMESTOPPERS COUNCIL AND ITS DUTIES, TO PROVIDE THAT A COURT MAY ORDER A DEFENDANT TO REPAY TO A CRIMESTOPPERS ORGANIZATION OR TO THE CRIMESTOPPERS COUNCIL A REWARD ISSUED BY EITHER ENTITY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF MONIES PAID BY CRIMESTOPPERS ORGANIZATION OR THE CRIMESTOPPERS COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION THAT RESULTS IN THE ARREST OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHERE MONIES ARE CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PURSUANT TO AN ARREST, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS REIMBURSED TO A CRIMESTOPPERS ORGANIZATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE, PROTECTED INFORMATION, AND PROTECTED IDENTITIES IN A COURT PROCEEDING, TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMUNICATE WITH, ACT ON PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, OR ARE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF A CRIMESTOPPERS ORGANIZATION OR THE CRIMESTOPPERS COUNCIL; AND TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MATTERS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE BY A PUBLIC BODY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC BODY MAY NOT DISCLOSE A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, PROTECTED INFORMATION, OR A PROTECTED IDENTITY EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 44-53-583, RELATING TO REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN MONIES TO A CRIMESTOPPERS ORGANIZATION.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary
H. 4457 (Word version) -- Rep. McGee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 47-1-180 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO ANIMAL SHELTER IN THIS STATE MAY DONATE, SELL, OR TRANSFER A LIVING ANIMAL FOR ANIMAL RESEARCH.
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
The following was introduced:
H. 4453 (Word version) -- Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SINCERE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA UPON THE PASSING OF MRS. BETTY LARR REDDICK NEDD OF BISHOPVILLE ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2005, AND TO EXTEND DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4454 (Word version) -- Reps. Mahaffey and Talley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE STEPHANIE SEAY, KINDERGARTEN TEACHER AT WELLFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, UPON BEING NAMED THE SOUTH CAROLINA TEACHER OF THE YEAR FOR 2005-2006.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:
Agnew Allen Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown R. Brown Cato Ceips Chalk Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Coates Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Emory Frye Funderburk Hagood Haley Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Herbkersman J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Lucas McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Norman Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scarborough Scott Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick White Witherspoon Young
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Wednesday, January 18.
Harold Mitchell David Weeks William R. "Bill" Whitmire Denny Neilson Joseph G. Mahaffey Bill Cotty Phillip Sinclair David Mack Bessie Moody-Lawrence Robert Walker Chip Huggins Ralph Davenport G. Murrell Smith Jackson "Seth" Whipper Todd Rutherford Glenn Hamilton Thad Viers Fletcher N. Smith Daniel Tripp Jerry Govan Becky Martin
Announcement was made that Dr. Jim Ingram of Sumter is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN presented to the House the Broome High School Lady Centurions Cross-Country Team, the 2005 State AA Champions, their coach and other school officials.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN presented to the House Stefan Shealy of the Broome High School Cross-Country Team for his impressive win of the Championship title.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2 Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper, its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. After a bill or resolution has been presented and given first reading, no further names of co-sponsors may be added. A member may add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The Clerk of the House shall print the member's or co-sponsor's written notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee."
Bill Number: H. 3338 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 LITTLEJOHN
Bill Number: H. 3685 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 HAMILTON
Bill Number: H. 4347 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 CEIPS
Bill Number: H. 4347 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 HERBKERSMAN
Bill Number: H. 4351 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 UMPHLETT
Bill Number: H. 4353 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 CEIPS
Bill Number: H. 4353 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 UMPHLETT
Bill Number: H. 4406 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 COOPER
Bill Number: H. 4406 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 BAILEY
Bill Number: H. 4427 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 WHITE
Bill Number: H. 4406 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 LOFTIS
Bill Number: H. 3338 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 J. BROWN
Bill Number: H. 3685 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 TRIPP
Bill Number: H. 4406 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/18/06 GOVAN
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate:
H. 4416 (Word version) -- Reps. Merrill, Scarborough, Altman, Hagood, Harrell, Limehouse and Young: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY NOT HIRE A CONTRACT LOBBYIST USING PUBLIC OR TAXPAYER FUNDS.
H. 4419 (Word version) -- Reps. Townsend, Cooper, White, Thompson, Agnew and Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-45-430, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF TAX RECEIPTS BY A COUNTY TREASURER UPON FULL PAYMENT OF THE TAXES AND CHARGES DUE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A COUNTY TREASURER MAY ACCEPT A LESSER AMOUNT THAN THE ORIGINAL TAX BILL TOGETHER WITH ANY APPLICABLE PENALTIES, COSTS, AND CHARGES WHENEVER A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AUTHORIZES A LESSER AMOUNT TO BE PAID, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE AUDITOR MAY PREPARE A TAX BILL TO AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATED TAXES AS A RESULT OF A BANKRUPTCY.
H. 4422 (Word version) -- Reps. Jennings, Witherspoon, Battle, Hayes, Branham, Clemmons, J. Hines, M. Hines, Lucas, Miller, Neilson, Viers, Coates, McGee, Anderson, Vick, McLeod, Kennedy, Hodges, Ott, Jefferson and Clyburn: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-3-618 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAY IMPOSE AND COLLECT A TOLL ALONG THE PROPOSED INTERSTATE 73 UPON COMPLETION OF THIS HIGHWAY PROJECT TO BE USED TO PAY FOR THE COST OF PLANNING, RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS, FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT, AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE TOLLS UPON PAYMENT OF ALL SUCH COSTS.
The following Joint Resolution was taken up:
S. 965 (Word version) -- Senator Leatherman: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND TO RETURN ALL SET-ASIDES COLLECTED FROM BLIND VENDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14.4, PART 1B OF THE 2005 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 14.4, PART 1B OF THE 2005 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
Rep. COOPER explained the Joint Resolution.
Rep. RICE moved to adjourn debate on the Joint Resolution, which was adopted.
The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
H. 4365 (Word version) -- Rep. Rhoad: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-90, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN BAMBERG COUNTY, SO AS TO DELETE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE, TO DELETE A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO A VOTING PLACE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE POLLING PLACES FOR THE PRECINCTS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE BAMBERG COUNTY REGISTRATION AND ELECTION COMMISSION WITH THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE BAMBERG COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.
S. 839 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Ford, Campsen and Grooms: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN CHARLESTON COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE AND RENAME CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY AND REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO CORRECT ARCHAIC REFERENCES.
Rep. SCOTT asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3340 (Word version) from the Committee on Education and Public Works.
Rep. TOWNSEND objected.
On motion of Rep. RHOAD, with unanimous consent, the following Joint Resolution was ordered recalled from the Committee on Ways and Means:
H. 4294 (Word version) -- Reps. Rhoad, Bailey and Moody-Lawrence: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF A SURPLUS NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY IN BAMBERG, SOUTH CAROLINA, TO THE CITY OF BAMBERG.
On motion of Rep. CHALK, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Beaufort Delegation:
H. 4385 (Word version) -- Reps. Chalk and Herbkersman: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 596 OF 1969, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE HILTON HEAD NO. 1 PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SO AS TO EXTEND THE TERMS OF COMMISSIONERS CURRENTLY SERVING BY ONE YEAR SO AS TO HAVE THEIR ELECTION IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS.
The following Bill was taken up:
H. 3702 (Word version) -- Reps. J. R. Smith, Loftis, Hinson, G. R. Smith, Haskins, Barfield, Vaughn, Clark, Frye, Davenport, Viers, Haley, Altman, Bailey, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clemmons, Dantzler, Edge, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Herbkersman, Huggins, Limehouse, Littlejohn, McGee, Merrill, Perry, E. H. Pitts, Rice, Sandifer, Scarborough, D. C. Smith, W. D. Smith, Talley, Tripp, Young, Owens and Leach: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-67-460, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR CONTRACTORS FOR ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND TO PROVIDE THE FORMULA BY WHICH THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD SHALL CALCULATE STATE AID.
Rep. KENNEDY demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.
The Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the Senate by a division vote of 38 to 24.
The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate:
H. 3591 (Word version) -- Reps. Brady, J. E. Smith, Harrison, Pinson, Agnew, Anthony, Ceips, Chalk, Cobb-Hunter, Frye, Haskins, Hayes, Hinson, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Lucas, McGee, E. H. Pitts, Taylor, Whitmire, Witherspoon, Young, Ballentine, Mahaffey, Thompson, Coates, Leach, Hagood, Clark, Sinclair, Cotty, Rhoad, Bailey, Jennings, Bales and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-270, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SCHEDULE V CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO INCLUDE IN SCHEDULE V ANY COMPOUND CONTAINING PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, TO REQUIRE SUCH COMPOUNDS TO BE DISPENSED ONLY BY A PHARMACIST, OR PHARMACY TECHNICIAN, TO REQUIRE A PICTURE IDENTIFICATION TO PURCHASE SUCH COMPOUNDS, TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH COMPOUND THAT CAN BE PURCHASED IN A THIRTY DAY PERIOD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT LIQUID OR CAPSULE FORMS OF COMPOUNDS WHERE PSEUDOEPHEDRINE IS NOT THE ONLY ACTIVE INGREDIENT ARE NOT SCHEDULE V CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO EXEMPT OTHER PRODUCTS BY REGULATION FROM SCHEDULE V IF THEY ARE NOT USED IN THE ILLEGAL MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETMINE.
The following Bill was taken up:
H. 4404 (Word version) -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 25 TO CHAPTER 31, TITLE 5 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SAFETY NET PROGRAMS AND POLICIES FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS CUSTOMERS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR UTILITY SERVICES ARE PROTECTED FROM TERMINATION DURING EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY DISCONNECT A SPECIAL NEEDS CONSUMER WHEN DIRECTED BY FIRE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN AN EMERGENCY; BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 TO CHAPTER 49, TITLE 33 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SAFETY NET PROGRAMS AND POLICIES FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR UTILITY SERVICES ARE PROTECTED FROM TERMINATION DURING EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY DISCONNECT A SPECIAL NEEDS CONSUMER WHEN DIRECTED BY FIRE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN AN EMERGENCY; BY ADDING ARTICLE 19 TO CHAPTER 27, TITLE 58 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SAFETY NET PROGRAMS AND POLICIES FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS CUSTOMERS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR UTILITY SERVICES ARE PROTECTED FROM TERMINATION DURING EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY DISCONNECT A SPECIAL NEEDS CONSUMER WHEN DIRECTED BY FIRE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN AN EMERGENCY; AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 31, TITLE 58 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SAFETY NET PROGRAMS AND POLICIES FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR UTILITY SERVICES ARE PROTECTED FROM TERMINATION DURING EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY DISCONNECT A SPECIAL NEEDS CONSUMER WHEN DIRECTED BY FIRE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN AN EMERGENCY.
Rep. SANDIFER explained the Bill.
Rep. KENNEDY demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Altman Anderson Anthony Bailey Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bingham Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown J. Brown Cato Chellis Clark Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Edge Emory Frye Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes J. Hines M. Hines Hinson Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Mack Mahaffey Martin McCraw McGee Merrill Miller Mitchell Moody-Lawrence J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Parks Phillips Rhoad Rice Rivers Sandifer Scott Simrill Skelton J. E. Smith Thompson Toole Townsend Umphlett Vaughn Vick Viers Walker White Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allen Cobb-Hunter Delleney Duncan Funderburk Haskins Hodges Lucas McLeod J. H. Neal Norman Perry Pinson E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rutherford Sinclair D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Weeks
So, the Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
H. 4413 (Word version) -- Reps. Hiott, Rice, Owens and Skelton: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE BRIDGE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 178 AND SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 11 IN PICKENS COUNTY THE "WOODROW BEAL 'WOODIE' CHASTAIN BRIDGE" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS BRIDGE THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "WOODROW BEAL 'WOODIE' CHASTAIN BRIDGE" AS A LASTING MEMORIAL TO THIS SON OF SOUTH CAROLINA WHO MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE IN DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY DURING THE VIETNAM WAR.
Whereas, Specialist 4 Woodrow Beal "Woodie" Chastain was born on September 11, 1950, was a resident of the Holly Springs Community of Pickens County, and was a member of Holly Springs Baptist Church; and
Whereas, he was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Beal Chastain; and
Whereas, Specialist 4 Chastain joined the United States Army on May 28, 1970, and received his basic training at Fort Jackson in Columbia, South Carolina; and
Whereas, he received advanced training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and commenced his combat tour of duty in Vietnam on October 24, 1970; and
Whereas, Specialist 4 Chastain heroically made the ultimate sacrifice to his nation on August 15, 1971, while on a combat mission when his unit encountered a hostile North Vietnamese enemy force; and
Whereas, it is fitting and proper for the members of the General Assembly to forever recognize the sacrifice this son of South Carolina made in defense of his country by naming a bridge in his native Pickens County in his honor. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, request that the Department of Transportation name the bridge located at the intersection of United States Highway 178 and South Carolina Highway 11 in Pickens County the "Woodrow Beal 'Woodie' Chastain Bridge" and erect appropriate markers or signs at this bridge that contain the words "Woodrow Beal 'Woodie' Chastain Bridge" as a lasting memorial to this son of South Carolina who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of his country during the Vietnam War.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transportation and to the family of the late Specialist 4 Woodrow Beal "Woodie" Chastain.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. COOPER.
Rep. R. BROWN moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour, which was agreed to.
Rep. KIRSH, from the York Delegation, submitted a favorable report on:
S. 1023 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 214 OF 2005, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YORK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 OF YORK COUNTY ARE ELECTED, SO AS TO CHANGE THE DATES ON WHICH THE ELECTION IS CONDUCTED.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. DELLENEY, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4458 (Word version) -- Reps. Delleney, W. D. Smith and F. N. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006, AS THE TIME TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JULY 31, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT 8, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2010; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM WHICH EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2009; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM WHICH EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007, AND THE SUBSEQUENT FULL TERM WHICH EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2013; AND TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SEAT 6, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2006.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the House of Representatives and the Senate shall meet in joint assembly in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 12:00 noon to elect a successor to the Honorable Costa M. Pleicones, Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 2, whose term expires July 31, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable Thomas E. Huff, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 8, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2010; to elect a successor to the Honorable Howard P. King, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable J. Michael Baxley, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable L. Casey Manning, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable Roger L. Couch, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable James W. Johnson, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable Daniel F. Pieper, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable Alexander S. Macaulay, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable William Paul Keesley, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the late Honorable Marc H. Westbrook, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable John C. Few, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable Perry M. Buckner III, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2006; to elect a successor to the Honorable Jackson V. Gregory, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, to fill the unexpired term which expires June 30, 2009; to elect a successor to the Honorable Stephen S. Bartlett, Judge of the Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, to fill the unexpired term which expires June 30, 2007, and the subsequent full term which expires June 30, 2013; and to elect a successor to the Honorable Ralph K. Anderson III, Judge of the Administrative Law Court, Seat 6, whose term expires June 30, 2006.
Be it further resolved that all nominations must be made by the Chairman of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and that no further nominating or seconding speeches may be made by members of the General Assembly on behalf of any candidate.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4459 (Word version) -- Reps. Bailey, Chellis, Harrell and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE ALLEN BROWNLEE FOR HIS OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS IN HIS CAREER AND TO HIS COMMUNITY, AND TO WISH HIM ALL THE BEST UPON HIS RETIREMENT FROM EDISTO ELECTRIC COOP.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following Bill was introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committee:
H. 4460 (Word version) -- Reps. R. Brown, Moody-Lawrence, Anderson, Cobb-Hunter, Rivers, Mitchell, J. H. Neal, Mack, Scott, J. Brown, Clyburn, Govan, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Parks and Whipper: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-7-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF BARBERS, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION FOR "HAIR BRAIDING", SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS TERM INCLUDES THE USE OF HAIR EXTENSIONS OR WEFTS.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs
The following Joint Resolution was taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
S. 965 (Word version) -- Senator Leatherman: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND TO RETURN ALL SET-ASIDES COLLECTED FROM BLIND VENDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14.4, PART 1B OF THE 2005 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 14.4, PART 1B OF THE 2005 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
Rep. RICE explained the Joint Resolution.
Rep. J. E. SMITH moved to reconsider the vote whereby H. 4404 (Word version) was given a third reading and the motion was noted.
Rep. RHOAD moved that the House recede until 6:45 p.m., which was agreed to.
At 6:45 p.m. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The House stood at ease, subject to the call of the Chair.
At 6:55 p.m. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
At 7:00 p.m. the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House. The President of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.
H. 4414 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrison, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, J.H. Neal, J.M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E.H. Pitts, M.A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D.C. Smith, F.N. Smith, G.M. Smith, G.R. Smith, J.E. Smith, J.R. Smith, W.D. Smith, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING HIS EXCELLENCY, MARSHALL CLEMENT (MARK) SANFORD, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2006, IN THE CHAMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Governor Marshall C. Sanford, Jr., and distinguished party were escorted to the rostrum by Senators Peeler, Leatherman, Verdin, McGill and Williams and Representatives G. R. SMITH, ALTMAN, YOUNG, J. H. NEAL and BATTLE. The President of the Senate introduced Governor Sanford who then addressed the Joint Assembly as follows:
Mr. SPEAKER, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentleman of the General Assembly, Constitutional Officers and my fellow South Carolinians:
It's an honor to be with you tonight to deliver my view of the State of our State, but before I do I would like to offer a few thank you's.
As you know, Jenny and I have four boys, Marshall, Landon, Bolton and Blake, each of whom is with us tonight. This State of the State is about what kind of South Carolina they will inherit. It's about every South Carolina kid and what this State will offer them when they graduate from high school. But before I get into exploring this, let me State the obvious - which would be common to any mom and dad: We are immensely proud of these boys. Each one unique and special.
Our third is quite imaginative, a bit unconventional in his thinking, and this last year he and his class were participating in a safety calendar contest. In offering safety tips, they typically offer suggestions like: wear your seat belt, wear a bike helmet, and don't play with matches. The word I got was the teacher came back to Jenny with the bad news that Bolton would not win a spot in the calendar, but marveled at how original his 2005 safety tip was for kids in his class - his safety tip don't have your birthday party in Afghanistan. An awfully interesting and somewhat odd answer for an eight-year-old, but many young Americans are having their birthdays in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So before we consider the State of the State this evening, it's worth pausing to note that whether we are Republicans or Democrats, southerners or northerners, we are all Americans and our country remains at war.
Whether you agree or disagree with what is going on in the Middle East, in the last year since I spoke here, thirteen more of our fellow South Carolinians have died in efforts to bring greater freedoms to that part of the world. I don't think we should go on about our business without recognizing what each of them has done. The service and sacrifice of men and women in uniform should serve as a constant reminder to all of us that freedom is not free. Military families bear this cost, and know the price and so I ask you to join me in honoring Mr. and Mrs. Joe Walker, from here in Columbia, whose son, 1st Lt. Joe Walker, just returned from Iraq and is now assigned at Ft. Benning. The family tradition he continues is extraordinary, begun as his grandfather and four brothers simultaneously served in World War Two.
While I am at it I want to thank a few other people as well.
I talk a lot about the inefficiency of our government. How, because of our structure, we spend 130% the U.S. average on the cost of government. How we need to continue what Carroll Campbell began in changing this government structure whose foundation, mind you, is the Constitution of 1895 a constitution built around the fear that a black man would be elected governor in Reconstruction South Carolina. A government structure voted into place when women were not allowed to vote, and blacks for all practical purposes could not vote. For our State to be competitive, this structure has to change.
I want to be clear though in that as passionately as I believe this, the faults of our government do not rest with its workers. It rests in its structure, which is in our hands - and so I would ask that you join me in recognizing one such worker who is representative of so many who often times work without recognition. Aaron Joyner is a major at Evans Correctional Institute and has worked quietly but diligently for the past 18 years at Corrections.
Similarly, I have spoken and will continue to speak on the need for reform in our education system. Education is the great equalizer in the twenty first century, and I believe that every - not just wealthy folks who can afford the right neighborhood that has a good school - but every parent ought to be able to send their child to the school they believe works best for their son or daughter. Not just the school that is in their zone, or their district, or their bus route, but the school they believe would work best for them. Believing that, and saying that, does not take away from what teachers across our State do every day in the lives of students. And so I would as well ask you to thank Jan Hammond, an eighth grade teacher at Northside Middle School in Lexington Two, who like so many of her peers, has worked and volunteered in our public schools for the last 29 years. Thank you.
I ask that my cabinet stand and be recognized for their hard work in administering their respective fields of government.
And last but not least, since the former Speaker of the House who so nobly served the State before becoming Ambassador to Canada is with us, I ask you to stand and recognize him and Susan as well.
Thank you for allowing me those introductions.
The State of our State is that we are a State in transition. Thomas Friedman wrote the book, The World is Flat, and his premise is that the world has changed in ways unimaginable to my father, and even to me or you, over the last few years. In this new found "flat world," for the first time in world history a kid in Hampton County is directly competing with a kid in Shanghai, New Delhi or Dublin.
I want you to think about that - it used to be that if you were born in a country like Burma, for all intents and purposes, you were just flat out of luck. You may well have had one of the brightest minds in the world but unless you got a ticket out of the place, there was no way to capitalize on your intellect. Now, with globalization and the Internet, you can stay right there and export whatever your brain has to offer to the rest of the world. As a consequence, the level of competition in our connected world is at levels never before seen - there are now 6.5 billion people on earth, there are 700 million more folks on earth than there were 10 years ago, and there are projected to be another 800 million over the next 10 years. These numbers dwarf the 4 million people who make our State great, and in essence, they mean another 200 South Carolinians will be added to earth over the next ten years, or looked at yearly there will be another 20 new South Carolinians each year to compete with - in addition to the 6.5 billion people already here.
Although we have been blessed by God in our geography, and we are at the front end of a wave of graying in America that will have profoundly positive implications for this State, things have to change for us to compete successfully in this new world. The question of a State of the State is where do we want to go as a people and have we begun the process of getting there?
Where I believe we want to go - and what got me interested in the governorship in the first place - is to South Carolina being a land of greater opportunity for each one of us in this State and for each one of our children - while at the same time keeping its special sense of place. To South Carolina being a more fertile place to build an idea or a dream into a business - and, therefore, a better place to make a good living and get a great job. To South Carolina being a place where a great education is available to all. To South Carolina being a great place to enjoy a high quality of life with one's family.
I am pleased to say that we have begun that process. It has been with starts and stops, at times it has been contentious - both of those things come with change.
On the first point, we have taken very serious steps to improving our business climate.
A good business climate means government not spending money it doesn't have, so that you avoid going to taxpayers and businesses to ask for more. Three years ago when I took office we began the budget process $750 million in the hole, $155 million of which was an unconstitutional deficit. The deficit has been paid back, most trust funds restored and we asked in the budget I presented a few weeks ago that we finish the job by paying back the last $278 million remaining. In addressing this, I would single out members like RALPH NORMAN, BEN HAGOOD, NIKKI HALEY, and also our Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom for the way they walked the walk in watching out for taxpayers in this last year.
I'd also ask very specifically of Hugh Leatherman and DAN COOPER, and your respective committees, that as you put together House and Senate budgets that they include what we believe should be a top priority - closing off and paying off these trust funds.
A good business climate means an executive branch budget that is no longer simply a wish list - but one that lives by the same budgeting rules you do. By producing the first operational executive branch budgets in South Carolina history, we have forever changed the executive branch's level of involvement in the budget process. I recognize that some of my friends in this room do not necessarily view this as the greatest thing, but it has made a difference. We have saved taxpayers money. The last few budgets have resulted in over $150 million in savings being adopted - and for that I thank each of you -especially those of you like Greg Gregory, Greg Ryberg and now SPEAKER HARRELL who were also part of the formula that led to those savings being adopted.
In that same vein, we have seen what I believe to be a new level of stewardship over the past few years. For instance, the port in Port Royal had been sitting for years and costing the State money; it's now being sold. It will bolster economic activity in that little town, produce millions for the State and better the quality of life for South Carolinians by opening new access to the water. Similarly, Bull Street had been sitting for years, while the way we cared for people with mental health issues changed. As a result of the budget hearing process and your help, it is now on course to being developed and will be an economic catalyst for Columbia and the Midlands.
I think a good business climate means a Department of Commerce that is working and focused on jobs that will stay for the long run. The efforts of Bob Faith and his team paid off this year. We have landed $1.4 billion in new capital investments, which is the best year since 1991. They also recruited 5,200 jobs from new companies and 6,800 jobs from existing businesses, paying an average of more than 30 percent above the State's current per capita income.
A good business climate means not treating small business as the red-headed step-child of economic development. As a result of your help and work, we cut the marginal income tax rate for the first time in South Carolina history. That tax cut was aimed squarely at the job creators in our State, small businesses that are the engines behind most jobs created in this State.
A good business climate means a legal environment that does not scare investment and capital from coming to our State. Thanks again to your work we also passed the first comprehensive tort reform bill - it will make our State more competitive in business and health care, move us off the list of "Judicial Hell Holes," and I particularly applaud people like Glenn McConnell or BOBBY HARRELL or JIM MERRILL who led on this key measure to help spur the economy in our State.
These kinds of things were what led the Executive Director of this State chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses to say, "This was probably the most historic session for small business in decades." The State Chamber said it a little differently but basically said the same thing when they said, "Without a doubt, 2005 has been one of the most successful legislative sessions on record, from a business perspective."
The list goes on: in education we have fully funded base student cost for the first time in five years and funded teacher pay $300 above the southeast average. In affecting quality of life, we have together moved things as wide ranging as the campaign finance reform bill and electronic disclosure of campaign reports - absolutely key to letting citizens know where money is coming from in our political process - to for two years now fully funding the Conservation Bank crucial to open space in a South Carolina with increasingly less of it. We have passed two domestic violence bills that go to the heart of creating a South Carolina where women aren't afraid to go home at night. We have streamlined agencies so they can do more with what they have, and we see it with results that make a difference in people's lives - whether a DNR in its ability to purchase a property like Bonneau Ferry - 10,000 acres of pure South Carolina splendor - or DMV where as a result of reforms wait times have gone from 66 minutes to 15 minutes.
I said in my first State of the State that when the budget recovered we were committed to putting more money for law enforcement. We have and I thank each one of you for the lives that will be saved with those additional troopers on the road.
Finally, in affecting quality of life, we have done a lot for health and wellness in this State - not just with things like a Preferred Drug List, the Medicaid reform waiver, or in offering health savings accounts to South Carolina workers and retirees - but in very personal ways through things like the Family Fitness Challenge that has directly impacted some of the folks with whom I have crossed different sections of our great State. People like Freddy Petersen of Clarks Hill who set for himself a healthy living goal and last time we heard from him had lost 50 lbs., and was still out there getting exercise on his bicycle.
We have a better functioning government than we did a year ago - whether as a result of the fuss we had over adding all kinds of unrelated things to a bill in a practice called bobtailing - that ultimately precipitated a court challenge and a change to the way things had been done, or with the changes the Senate imposed on itself with Senate rules, and here I would give particular credit to Glenn McConnell, Larry Martin, Harvey Peeler and others on the Senate team.
The bottom line for each of you as members of the General Assembly is that we are making a difference in moving toward a South Carolina of greater opportunity, and I want to thank each one of you for your part in this movement.
That is where we are, but tonight is as well about where we go to better the lives of South Carolinians in the next year.
For all that we have gotten done, we still have many miles to go in improving our State. Too many South Carolinians don't have work, or work that fully uses their talents. We still have much more we can do to make our State competitive in the global economy. Education and health care are still not where we need them to be for people to make the most of their lives. I think an accurate characterization of the State of our State today is that we're making real progress, but that we can do more - and doing so means change in fundamental ways.
So this year, I will offer a relatively short list of things that I believe are fundamental to improving our lives and moving us further toward South Carolina being this land of greater opportunity.
I want to call on each and every one of you as members of the General Assembly, not just Republicans...but Democrats as well...to join me in dealing with these fundamental things that can help in making South Carolinian's lives better.
I say that recognizing it is an election year, and many people say not much gets done legislatively in election years, but as in many other areas, that's a place where I don't think we can accept business as usual. The election comes toward the end of the year, not toward the beginning. Though some may see their political role, or their party or their candidate strengthened around election times - with obstructionism or stopping legislation - I don't think it is something the people of South Carolina can afford. Let's not let politics get in the way of making a difference in the lives of our people in this State. Between now and June let's focus on the business at hand - tackling fundamental things.
Last October, America was saddened by the death of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks. When I talk about doing fundamental things in our State this year, I would point to the example of Rosa Parks for inspiration. A poor seamstress from Montgomery, Alabama, she courageously defied the status quo that surrounded her, and in so doing set off a chain reaction that altered the course of America in fundamentally positive ways. In her autobiography, she wrote, "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that wasn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in." That attitude changed our country for the better. As she tackled the fundamental principle of civil rights, so, too, should we look to tackle fundamental things in our State.
Most fundamental to every one of our livelihoods is a job. As I said earlier, our State is a State in transition. We have been hit hard as textile jobs have moved to China, India and other places around the world. We have been hit hard by Thomas Friedman's flat world. The good news is that Commerce is now replacing those jobs at record numbers, and at a pay rate 30% above many of the old jobs. We have taken very important steps to improving soil conditions for business so they can better compete.
People from outside our borders seem to be taking notice of these things because they are coming here in large numbers. Our labor force grew by 45,000 last year, and in the last three months alone it has grown by 1.7% - the fastest growth rate in the continental United States. In the short run, labor force growth bumps up our unemployment numbers, but according to Don Shunk of the Moore School of Business in the long run it can mean good things for our economy. It means someone is loading up a U-Haul rental trailer and leaving Michigan because they think South Carolina represents greater opportunity. In the short run, that lowers Michigan's unemployment rate and raises ours, but in the long run we will be better off for these folks making South Carolina home.
So that we can speed the rate of job creation for people in our State and people moving here, it is vital we focus on the business soil conditions of our State. Here's why.
During the 1990's, South Carolina had some famous successes in job recruitment, and my predecessors in this office deserve great credit for their efforts. What's remarkable though is how much those successes have been eclipsed by the speed of global competition in just a few years. Thirty percent of all the jobs announced in South Carolina during the 1990's aren't here anymore, and it's a reminder of how challenging Thomas Friedman's flat world really is.
We can't control federal trade policy, we can't control global exchange rates but we can control how competitive our business environment is in South Carolina - which, at the end of the day, will have a major impact in determining whether jobs stay for a little while or a long time. This year, I think there are four more things we can do on the jobs and economy front to make South Carolina more competitive.
We need to reform our workers compensation system, better our government structure, hold the line on spending and add just a few things at Commerce that, for the most part, we outlined in our budget.
Workers compensation rates in South Carolina are on their way to scaring off business investment and killing jobs in our State. If we do nothing, South Carolina businesses will be saddled with $350 million in additional costs next year - and this is despite their safety efforts that in 2004 were the best in the history of the State. I ask that this year be the year that we reform our archaic workers comp system and Second Injury Fund, and provide another building block for job creation in our State.
The structure of our State government itself is a driver in what happens next in our economy. With a number of legislative colleagues, we have proposed a package that most of you are well-acquainted with, dealing with the appointment of Constitutional officers, health care restructuring and the creation of a Department of Administration.
I thank members of the House for passing a bill allowing voters to determine whether or not they think the Superintendent of Education and the Secretary of State should be part of our cabinet. I'd also thank members of the Senate for the way they started the ball rolling on administrative restructuring. I'd ask both bodies to strengthen these bills as they cross over, because they are about better spending government money, better government service, and in the case of constitutional positions, about making these positions part of the executive branch team and in doing so - strengthening their weight in our political process.
The creation of a Department of Administration is simply asking for what 49 other governors already have in this country - the ability to actually administer the laws created by the legislative branch. Health care restructuring is about better health services for a whole lot of people in our State who need it. Imitation has been said to be one of the greatest compliments, and in this vein, I would say acting on restructuring this year would be an awfully special way to honor former Governor Campbell who took on the role of South Carolina trailblazer when it came to restructuring.
His widow, Iris, is with us, and I would ask that you stand as a way of thanking Carroll and Iris for what both of them have done for our State.
On spending, we have got to come up with some alternative to having me try to catch up with Governor Campbell's record of 277 budget vetoes. For some of us, it has been the one area of disagreement on what has otherwise been good working relationships. I have fought, though, because what happens next in government spending will heavily affect our ability to compete with the rest of the world.
Think about it, if you really believe Thomas Friedman is right - that we live in one of the most transformative times in world history. Then wouldn't you want to maximize the part of your economy that will change the fastest? This is not about some crusade that says government is bad and only the private sector is good; it is about speeding the rate of change and recognition of the fact that the private sector can change faster than the public sector.
It is also about common sense notions. Most folks in the country tell me they agree with the principal of "first things first" and that it makes sense to pay off money you borrowed from a reserve account before you begin new spending. They tell me it doesn't make sense to grow government faster than people's ability to pay for government.
On this front I ask just two things. One, as I mentioned earlier, adopt what we laid out in our budget in paying back trust funds and limiting government. Two, going forward let's let the people decide what they think the appropriate rate of growth ought to be in their government.
I happen to think we are growing too fast since South Carolina is now 130% of the U.S. average in the cost of government, and we rank eighth in the nation in State spending on a per-capita basis. I think one look around the globe or the country shows how economically vibrant low-tax and low-spending countries or States are when compared to high-tax and big-government economies. But as much as I believe that, if you will just allow our voters to decide this issue, and if they then decide they want to grow government at a rate faster than population plus inflation, you won't hear a word from me.
I will live by what the people of South Carolina decide. This is a great way to avoid a lot of fighting and fussing come budget time, and I ask you send to the voters this fall the Taxpayer Empowerment Amendment to limit the growth of our government's spending to population plus inflation.
On both the government restructuring issue and on the taxpayer empowerment amendment, you don't have to agree with me. All I ask is that you let the voters decide. I remember well back in the year 2000 when my predecessor, Governor Jim Hodges, made a strong plea for the State lottery. I opposed the lottery and said so at the time. I know that many of you opposed the lottery, too, but still voted in favor of letting the people decide. Letting voters decide was the right thing to do then, and it's the right thing to do now.
Finally, in improving our economy, I mentioned a few things at Commerce that we, for the most, part outlined in our budget. The one thing I did not outline, that I request Commerce handle for the administration - and work with legislative leaders like Jim Ritchie who has been a great leader in this arena - is a broadband conference. To be competitive and thrive in Friedman's new world, it is vital that people living in rural South Carolina have as much of a chance to get on the information highway as people living in our urban cores. Without the ability to get information through the Internet at high speeds, the economic growth of these regions will be locked in at low speeds. I am committed to seeing what the public sector can do to help in leveraging the private sector's investment in this area.
A second fundamental given the times we live in is the overarching importance of a great education. Without a great education you cannot compete in today's world, and on this front I ask of you three things.
First, given Judge Cooper's recent decision, let's take a complete inventory of what, where and how we spend money in early childhood education. I have long been a proponent of early childhood education, but that does not mean I believe in attempting to be all things to all people on this front. In this vein, let's use the private sector's capacity, let's focus the finite resources we have in this State to the programs that produce the best outcomes - and let's direct them toward the people for whom it will make the biggest difference. I think we need to do these things before going to the taxpayer asking for more money.
Two, I ask you pass charter school legislation that would make it easier for groups of teachers and parents to come together and create new public schools. One size never fits all, God makes every child unique in the way they learn, and I think it makes a whole lot of sense to have more choices in our educational system that fit with the diversity of different kids in our State. I believe the charter school bill would be an important step in this direction.
Finally, great colleges do you no good if you can't afford them. In our State, rising tuition costs at many of our public universities are nearing a point where a college education moves beyond the reach of many South Carolina families. After in-state tuition increases of 51% at Clemson and 39% at USC in just the last three years alone, our schools have the highest in-state tuitions in the Southern region and among the top five in the entire nation. It costs as much as $4,000 per year more for a South Carolinian to attend our leading State universities than it costs Georgians or North Carolinians to attend theirs.
We spend 17% of our overall State budget on higher education compared to a national average of 10.5%, and we have the second highest percentage of a State budget committed to higher education in the entire southeast. Our problem is that we do not have a coordinated higher ed system, and, as a consequence, we have an expensive higher ed system. We have islands of coordination and on this front, I'd praise Ray Greenberg at MUSC for his leadership in working collaboratively on the pharmacy program with USC. We need more of this, so I'm asking you once again to place a cap on tuition increases at $250 above the Higher Education Price Index, which last year was 3.5%. These caps are about forcing a long-needed conversation on coordinating our university system - and, as a consequence, yielding more affordable tuitions at State universities. Tying tuition increases to higher ed inflation will consequently unleash a lot of creative effort in ending inefficiency and duplication in our system.
Finally, the third fundamental I would like to touch on tonight is the quality of one's life in South Carolina. We get an education, we get a job, but then we live this thing called life. I think as policymakers we should do things that enhance those 50-60-70 years between school and our trip to see the good Lord.
We have focused a lot on health because it will have a huge impact on the quality of every one of our lives. On this front, I ask that you help Robbie Kerr in his ability to enact our Medicaid waiver now pending before the federal government because better care for South Carolina's Medicaid population hangs in the balance.
We have talked a lot about how not getting run over by a drunk driver is basic to quality of life in South Carolina. On this, let's quit talking and fix it.
We have talked a lot about open space and have even proposed another $10 million for timberland acquisition because a high quality life in my book means glimpses of the South Carolina so many of us grew up with and means some alternatives to more buildings and more traffic in some of the more congested parts of our State.
But tonight let me throw out two other aspects to what I would define as a high quality life in our State. I think for those 50 to 70 years we have, if you are living at your home or your farm you shouldn't be forced to sell it by the government - or have the land taken from you by a government agency.
In fact, there are few things more fundamental to South Carolina living than the places we live. When I lived in New York, people would ask, "what do you do" as their way of identifying you; here we ask, "where are you from." We have a unique sense of place as a part of our identity as South Carolinians, and those places are being threatened in two ways.
First, last June, the United States Supreme Court reached a decision that basically said that local governments can use the power of eminent domain to take private property from one landowner and give it to another. This broke new ground. Never before have the courts said a city could bulldoze a private home or community in order to give the land to a private developer.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "Today the Court abandons a long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be "upgraded." The fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
The good news is that the Kelo decision does not mandate anything. It gives local governments the right to expand their eminent domain powers. We have the ability to prevent this and I would ask that we do so. On this point, I want to thank BOBBY HARRELL, Glenn McConnell and others in leadership who were a part of our conversations that came in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, and I want to commend our present South Carolina Supreme Court for the way this court has ruled on these matters. While addressing this, we should also take a close look at condemnation authority generally.
The second part of this is this fundamental notion of ownership because key to any capitalistic society is the principle of actually owning things - and the largest thing most people own is their home or their farm. The quality of many people's lives would be diminished if, through no fault of their own, they were forced to sell something they prized because the government around them is growing. Let's be clear on this, property taxes have grown rapidly as government has correspondingly increased its spending - and what people from a lot of corners across our State have said is that it is time for this to stop.
So on this I first applaud the work of the House and the Senate for its focus on property tax reform. I also want to thank the many taxpayer groups around this State for the way they have been unrelenting in their focus, friends like Leneu Seigling who every time I see him brings this up.
As we enter this debate, I want to lay out a few markers on where this administration is on providing tax relief to property owners. We think this can be the year of property tax relief, and we believe this issue warrants a full discussion of all the options in how we might do so.
One) We believe any swap of sales taxes for property taxes should be either revenue neutral or a net tax cut. If, in the name of reducing property taxes, we end up in fact raising taxes, then I will be forced to veto the bill.
Two) Changes in the sales tax should ideally be more comprehensive than just a one or two penny increase. We should take the opportunity to look at exemptions that are not serving their purpose. On the same front, we ought to look at the code itself and the way it is, or is not, enforced by local government. As an example, back home on the coast I know of a lot of folks whose lands are taxed at agriculture rates, though the land is in fact development land owned by developers - not farmers.
Three) We should keep one eye carefully focused on what we have been about as an administration from the beginning - our competitive position in the world and how favorable our climate is for business in this State as it competes with the rest of the world. While we believe the income tax is the most harmful to economic activity, we have said for years that all taxes are not equal, and taxing investment is worse than taxing consumption. We, therefore, have no problem swapping real estate taxes for sales taxes as long as we look carefully at both implications and offsets - so that we do not erode our business climate.
Four) Let's be open to giving more tools to local governments as one option in dealing with this problem. This does not have to be a top down solution; it could be bottom up. This could make particular sense given the way that growth and real estate taxes are a profound problem in some parts of our State and not that significant in other areas. If we offer this option, we need to give local government the ability to look over the long term at what is causing real estate taxes to rise, and impact those root causes driving our property taxes upward. If we don't, we will be back at the drawing board a few years from now looking at this issue again. In 1998, the homestead exemption was supposed to take care of the property tax issue and it didn't because root causes were not dealt with.
At the local level, one of our problems is that growth doesn't pay for itself in this State - that means when 1,000 new folks move from Ohio or New Jersey into our State, people who have been living in this State for years or generations have to pay for the new school for the new folks moving into town.
In high growth areas of our State, people have connected growth with, indeed, paying for the new folks' school, dealing with added traffic, and losing their favorite deer stand or fishing hole - and so they fight it. It shouldn't be this way; our growth should be sustainable, and, therefore, embraced. This fight is driven by the simple question of who pays for growth, the people who already paid for it once or the new folks causing the need for expansion in the school or road. Impact fees have been employed in Florida and other high growth States, and I'm not averse to looking at this option in this debate.
Five) Let's be sure to align cost with benefit. If the State takes over the funding of local schools, we believe it is important to align or cap the growth rate of spending in those local schools. If we did not do this, there would be every incentive to add programs and facilities with the belief that Columbia, not local people, would be footing the bills for these expenditures. The opposite holds true as well and calls for a review of State mandated spending on counties.
Before I end tonight, there is one final fundamental thing that I want to put on the table based on a number of conversations with friends. It's a sensitive area, but in keeping with the spirit of Rosa Parks, worth submitting for your consideration. In the State of South Carolina, just about 30% of our citizens are African-American, and yet only about 10% of the judges in our State are African-American. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception in parts of our State that their government is not committed to the principle of diversity. I don't believe this perception is true - but would ask the General Assembly to make real efforts this year to increase the number of African-Americans appointed to the bench so that we extinguish this perception in our State. There are exceedingly capable folks out there, and once again in keeping with Ms. Parks' spirit, let's not wait another year to address this fundamental and important matter.
In closing - my simple hope and my prayer is that as we deal with these and other issues - as well as each other this year - that we would live and walk Micah 6:8: Doing with justice that which we are charged to do, embracing with mercy all affected by what we do, and most of all walking humbly with each other and those we serve in this State.
I look forward to working with each of you this year. Thank you and good night.
The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT announced that under the terms of the Concurrent Resolution the Joint Assembly would recede from business.
The Senate accordingly retired to its Chamber.
At 7:58 p.m. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
Rep. SCARBOROUGH moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.
At 8:00 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. ANTHONY, adjourned in memory of former Representative W. Marshall Comer of Union, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 9:40 A.M.