Legal Opinion
Hiott v. State
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided October 11, 2007No. 4302PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
In this case, we hold the PCR court has authority to issue Rule 11 sanctions against a post-conviction applicant pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
FACTS
Milton Daniel Hiott (Hiott) was convicted of incest and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. Hiott did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
Hiott filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Hiott alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare for trial, failing to request a Blair 1 hearing, and failing to file a direct appeal. Additionally, Hiott argued he was entitled to relief based on…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Charleston County School District v. State Budget & Control BoardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Pierce v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
- Jinks Ex Rel. Estate of Jinks v. Richland CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
- City of Columbia v. American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hiott v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009