895 S.E.2d 633
S.C.2023Background:
- Jeroid J. Price was convicted of murder (2003) and sentenced to 35 years; he began serving in December 2003.
- Defense counsel and the Richland County solicitor exchanged draft orders and met privately with Judge L. Casey Manning in late December 2022; no written motion was filed in the clerk's office under S.C. Code § 17-25-65.
- On December 30, 2022 Judge Manning signed an "ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE" (reducing Price's sentence to 19 years) and a contemporaneous note indicating the order was sealed; the order was not file-stamped or publicly docketed.
- Price was released March 15, 2023; the public and Attorney General learned of the release in April 2023; the Attorney General sought unsealing and relief and the Supreme Court issued certiorari.
- The Supreme Court vacated the December 30 order and remanded Price to DOC, holding the circuit court lacked authority because statutory procedures were not followed and the proceedings/order could not lawfully be closed or sealed; the Court acknowledged but declined to vacate based solely on victims‑rights violations.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Price) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Whether §17-25-65 authorizes the reduction when the circuit solicitor never filed a written motion and statutory steps were not followed | The State effectively sought and obtained the reduction; procedural irregularities do not negate the court's action | §17-25-65 mandates a written motion filed with the clerk, copy to the chief judge, and a hearing; without those steps the court lacked authority | Court: No authority — statutory requirements are mandatory; reduction without filing/hearing exceeded court's power; order vacated |
| B. Whether the court could close the proceeding or seal the order | Closure/sealing was permissible to protect safety/confidentiality tied to cooperation | Court proceedings and records are presumptively public under state Constitution and statute; sealing requires specific legal authority and findings | Court: No — closing the proceeding and sealing the order violated open‑courts principles; sealing was unauthorized and contributed to vacatur |
| C. Whether violations of the Victims' Bill of Rights / Victims' Rights Act require vacatur | Violations of victims' notice/attendance rights warrant relief and vacatur | Although violations occurred, constitutional and statutory text bar invalidating judgments solely for victims'‑rights noncompliance | Court: Violations occurred but do not independently justify vacatur; declined to grant relief on that ground |
| D. Whether §17-25-65 may reduce a murder sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum in §16-3-20(A) | Murder sentences (30–life) are ineligible for credits/early release; §16-3-20(A) precludes reduction below mandatory minimum | §17-25-65 contemplates post‑sentence reductions for substantial assistance and does not expressly exempt murder convictions | Court: Did not decide the issue (unnecessary to resolve given A and B) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. McLeod v. Cnty. Ct. of Richland Cnty., 261 S.C. 478 (1973) (vacating unlawful post‑final‑judgment sentence reductions)
- Ex parte Cap. U-Drive-It, Inc., 369 S.C. 1 (2006) (presumption of open courts; narrow scope for sealing records)
- Ex parte Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., 369 S.C. 69 (2006) (requirements and findings required to close proceedings)
- Ex parte Columbia Newspapers, Inc., 286 S.C. 116 (1985) (court must make specific findings to justify closure)
- In re Greenville News, 332 S.C. 394 (1998) (vacating closure orders; public access to judicial proceedings)
- In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1986) (First Amendment access extends to sentencing proceedings)
- In re Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., 641 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2011) (two‑part test for First Amendment right of access: experience and logic)
- State v. Best, 257 S.C. 361 (1972) (limitations on trial court authority to alter final sentences)