Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Mills

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 7, 2004No. 25864Published

1DissentJustice Pleicones

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-560 (Supp.2003) permits an inmate found to have violated the terms of his community supervision program (CSP) to serve an additional sentence,3 up to an amount equal to the period of incarceration imposed as part his original sentence. I would read the statute differently.

CSP “serves essentially the same function for persons convicted of ‘no parole offenses’ as parole does for other inmates.” Jackson v. State, 349 S.C. 62, 562 S.E.2d 475 (2002). As with parole, the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re the Treatment & Care of LuckabaughSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
  2. Ward v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  3. Jackson v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API