Legal Opinion

Whitehead v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 16, 2002No. 25567PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Justice PLEICONES:

We ordered the parties to address the issue whether the defense of laches is available to the State where, as here, a post-conviction relief (PCR) applicant has made an Austin 1 claim. We hold that while laches may be pled as an affirmative defense, the State has waived it in this particular action. This matter shall proceed as directed below.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1992, petitioner’s first PCR application was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Appellate review of that order was not sought. Petitioner subsequently filed a second PCR application alleging, among other things,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Austin v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
  2. Hallums v. HallumsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1988
  3. Odom v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
  4. Adams v. B & D, INC.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
  5. Godwin v. CarriganSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1955

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Raso v. WallSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2005
  2. Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. v. UlbrichSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  3. Plyler v. BurnsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  4. Lee v. BunchSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  5. McHoney v. South CarolinaDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API