744 S.E.2d 503
S.C.2013Background
- Hamm seeks a writ of habeas corpus and declaratory relief over civil commitment under SC SVP Act.
- Hamm contends plea counsel failed to inform him that pleading guilty could trigger SVP Act consequences (Padilla-based claim).
- Hamm argues section 16-15-140 is non-violent in criminal code but violent for SVP Act, raising double jeopardy and due process concerns.
- Court notes habeas relief reserved for grave constitutional violations; Hamm did not exhaust PCR remedies within 1 year of Padilla decision.
- Even if reach Padilla claim, SVP commitment is civil, not automatic from conviction; Padilla does not apply to SVP civil commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hamm exhausted remedies for Padilla claim | Hamm exhausted nothing; Padilla claim arises from plea counsel's acts. | Hamm failed to file PCR within 1 year per § 17-27-45 and thus is barred. | Barred for failure to exhaust; habeas inappropriate. |
| Whether Padilla applies to SVP Act civil commitment | Padilla requires advising about immigration/penalty consequences of plea; SVP is analogous consequence. | SVP civil commitment is separate civil process; Padilla does not apply to SVP Act. | Padilla does not apply to SVP civil commitment. |
| Whether classification of §16-15-140 as non-violent for criminal code but violent for SVP Act violates rights | Different classifications create due process/ double jeopardy concerns. | Legislature intended SVP Act to address dangerous offenders; no constitutional violation. | No violation; classification consistent with SVP Act purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (deportation as a direct/critical consequence requiring advisement)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla not retroactive; deportation is unique)
- Page v. State, 364 S.C. 632 (S.C. 2005) (civil commitment under SVP Act not direct from guilty plea)
- In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Beaver, 372 S.C. 272 (S.C. 2007) (lewd act deemed violent for SVP Act purposes despite criminal non-violent classification)
- Gibson v. State, 329 S.C. 37 (S.C. 1998) (habeas relief requires exhaustion of other remedies)