Thompson v. State, 785 S.E.2d 189

Between 1998–2000 Thompson committed six armed hotel robberies; in each the clerk was held at gunpoint and restrained (duct tape or rope). He was indicted on multiple armed robbery and kidnapping counts.
In 2001 Thompson pled guilty to six counts of armed robbery and four counts of kidnapping; the sentencing court made no on-the-record finding whether the kidnappings were sexual in nature.
The SCDC internally classified Thompson as a sex offender based on the kidnapping convictions, affecting in-prison programming and pre-release eligibility.
In 2009 Thompson sought a declaratory judgment that (1) his kidnappings were not sexual and (2) he would not have to register as a sex offender upon release (2020).
The circuit court dismissed as unripe and directed Thompson to pursue SCDC administrative remedies; the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may declare Thompson’s kidnapping offenses were not sexual in nature	Thompson: the absence of an on-the-record finding denied him a meaningful opportunity to be heard under the civil sex-offender statute; relief via declaratory judgment is appropriate now	State: the proper time to resolve sex-offender consequences is at release; failure to obtain a finding at plea time waives the issue	Supreme Court: reversed as to this issue — Thompson is entitled to a hearing now to determine whether the kidnappings were sexual in nature; victims may testify and be heard
Whether the court may declare Thompson will not have to register as a sex offender upon 2020 release	Thompson: seeks certainty that he will not be subject to registration	State: registration obligation depends on the statute in effect at release; pre-release determination would be advisory and unripe	Court: affirmed — future registration is not ripe because statutory law at release may differ; declaratory relief denied as advisory
Whether the court may review SCDC's internal classification of Thompson as a sex offender	Thompson: SCDC’s classification has immediate harmful effects and flows from the lack of a court finding	State: administrative grievance process within SCDC has not been exhausted	Court: declined to address classification until Thompson exhausts SCDC grievance remedies; remand hearing on kidnapping character may feed that process

Sunset Cay, L.L.C. v. City of Folly Beach, 357 S.C. 414 (establishes justiciable controversy requirement for declaratory relief)
Hazel v. State, 377 S.C. 60 (sex-offender registration determinations tied to statute in effect at release; issue not ripe pre-release)
Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354 (prison administrative grievance exhaustion required for custody/classification disputes)
Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 319 S.C. 69 (Declaratory Judgment Act construed liberally to afford speedy resolution)
Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning Comm’n, 376 S.C. 165 (procedural due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
State v. Nation, 408 S.C. 474 (sex offender registry is civil and separate from criminal punishment)
In re Justin B., 405 S.C. 391 (distinguishing civil registry consequences from criminal penalties)
Williams v. Ozmint, 380 S.C. 473 (post-conviction relief is for constitutional challenges to convictions, not civil registry issues)