Legal Opinion

Hiott v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided March 16, 2009No. 26615PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Justice BEATTY:

Milton Hiott’s application for post-conviction relief (PCR) was denied. The PCR judge found Hiott’s testimony and claims were frivolous and sanctioned him $3,000 pursuant to Rule 11 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding as a matter of first impres sion that Rule 11 is applicable in PCR proceedings. Hiott v. State, 375 S.C. 354, 652 S.E.2d 436 (Ct.App.2007). We granted Hiott’s petition for a writ of certiorari and now reverse.

I. FACTS

Hiott was convicted of incest with his daughter after a two-day criminal trial on January 16 and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Aice v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
  3. Pierce v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  4. Wade v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
  5. Page v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brown v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
  2. Kinard v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API