Edwards v. State Law Enforcement Division
395 S.C. 571
| S.C. | 2011Background
- Respondent Jeremy Edwards pled guilty in 1998 to two counts of Peeping Tom; probation and community service imposed.
- In 2004 Edwards received a full pardon from SCDPPPS.
- In 2009 Edwards petitioned for a court order relieving him from sex-offender registration under §23-3-430.
- Horry and Greenville solicitors did not object; Florence solicitor referred to Attorney General due to conflict.
- Attorney General opposed, arguing amendments to §23-3-430 are remedial and retroactive; circuit court ruled Edwards remains exempt from registration.
- Supreme Court of South Carolina affirms circuit court, holding the 2004 pardon relieved Edwards from registration; subsequent amendments do not apply retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2004 pardon relieve registration? | Edwards asserts pardon relieves all consequences. | SLED argues amendments are remedial and retroactive. | Yes; pardon relieves registration. |
| Do amendments to §23-3-430 clarify or change law for pardoned offenders? | Amendments clarify existing intent. | Amendments change the law. | Amendments change law; not merely clarify. |
| Are the amendments to §23-3-430 procedural or remedial, and retroactive? | Amendments are remedial/procedural and retroactive. | Amendments are procedural/remedial; retroactivity depends on nature. | Not retroactive; amendments are not procedural/remedial to apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baucom, 340 S.C. 339, 531 S.E.2d 922 (2000) (pardoned convictions not used to enhance subsequent DUI charge)
- Wiesart v. Stewart, 379 S.C. 300, 665 S.E.2d 187 (Ct.App. 2009) (amendment as procedural; retroactivity analysis in sex-offender registry context)
- Stuckey v. State Budget & Control Bd., 339 S.C. 397, 529 S.E.2d 706 (2000) (amendments clarifying legislative intent; context-dependent retroactivity)
- Frey, 362 S.C. 511, 608 S.E.2d 874 (Ct.App. 2005) (amendment addressing procedural matters retrospectively; retroactivity depends on nature)
- City of Rock Hill v. Harris, 391 S.C. 149, 705 S.E.2d 53 (2011) (statutory interpretation of legislative enactments)