State v. Turner

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Bowen Gray Turner, Respondent.

In re: Victim C.B., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000472

Appeal From Orangeburg County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-013
Heard September 10, 2024 – Filed January 15, 2025

DISMISSED

Meliah Bowers Jefferson, of Wyche, PA, of Greenville;
Terri Hearn Bailey and Sarah Anne Ford, both of the
South Carolina Victim Assistance Network, of Columbia;
and Tamika D. Cannon, of the South Carolina Victim
Assistance Network, of Taylors, all for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor John William Weeks, of
Aiken, all for Respondent the State.
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Respondent Bowen Gray Turner.

PER CURIAM: Bowen G. Turner pled guilty to first-degree assault and battery
of Victim C.B. (Victim). Victim appeals the plea court's denial of her motion to
enforce victims' rights, her rule to show cause against Illery Bail Bonding
Company, and her petition for a writ of mandamus.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 2, 2019, Bowen Turner sexually assaulted Victim in Orangeburg County.
Authorities arrested and charged him with first-degree criminal sexual conduct
(CSC) on June 12.1 At the time of Victim's assault, Turner was out on bond for
first-degree CSC of a different victim in Bamberg County.2 The magistrate court
and the circuit court subsequently denied Turner's motion for bond. Upon turning
seventeen, Turner renewed his motion for bond, asserting a change of
circumstances based upon his transfer from the Department of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ) to the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center. The circuit court
granted Turner's renewed motion for bond and released him on home detention
with GPS monitoring. The bond order specified:

ANY and ALL violations of the conditions of HOME
DETENTION shall be reported to the Second Circuit
Solicitor's Office or the Orangeburg County Sheriff's
Office within 24 hours of the violation. FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THIS NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT WILL SUBJECT THE ELECTRONIC
MONITORING COMPANY TO POTENTIAL
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT.

The court further ordered, "If the Defendant is observed violating any term or
condition of this Order, any law enforcement agency is hereby authorized by this
Order to immediately take the Defendant into custody and to hold the Defendant in

1
At the time of his arrest, Turner was sixteen years old.
2
The victim of the Bamberg County assault is now deceased, and the State
dismissed the charges after her death.
custody pending a hearing on the alleged violation(s) of this Order." (emphasis
added).

From the beginning of November 2021 through February 2022, Turner violated the
terms of his home arrest at least fifty times, going to multiple golf courses,
restaurants, shops, friends' houses, etc. In violation of the bond order, the GPS
monitoring company failed to notify the State of Turner's violations. On Victim's
request, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) obtained Turner's
GPS records from Illery Bonding Company on March 2, 2022. Contrary to the
terms of the bond order, authorities did not arrest Turner; rather, the solicitor's
office filed a motion to revoke bond, which was set for a hearing on April 8, 2022.

On April 4, 2022, the solicitor's office notified Victim that it planned to make
Turner a plea offer to the reduced charge of assault and battery. On April 6, 2022,
Victim filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the State to
arrest Turner pursuant to the terms of the bond order; a rule to show cause against
Illery Bonding Company for failing to report Turner's violations; and a motion
protesting the plea agreement and seeking to enforce Victim's right to be heard.
Specifically, Victim sought to be heard prior to the court's acceptance of Turner's
plea.

At the beginning of the plea hearing on April 7, the court dismissed Victim's
motions as untimely. Victim subsequently moved to continue the plea hearing so
that she could comply with the notice requirements cited by the court; the State
opposed the continuance, and the plea court denied the motion. Thereafter, Turner
pled guilty to the assault and battery of Victim. The State recommended the court
sentence Turner, pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act (YOA), to a sentence not
to exceed six years' imprisonment suspended to two years' probation.

During the sentencing phase of the hearing, the court allowed Victim's father to
speak on her behalf. The father of the Bamberg County victim also made a
statement. Both individuals opposed probation, requesting a sentence to fit the
gravity of Turner's crime and mandatory registration as a sex offender.

Following the victim impact statements, the plea court sentenced Turner, under the
YOA, to a term of imprisonment not to exceed six years suspended upon five
years' probation with sex offender counseling. The court specified that should
Turner complete all five years without violating the terms of his probation,
registration as a sex offender would not be required. In making its sentence, the
court reasoned:
I do think the YOA sentence is appropriate for many
reasons. Because one, because of what I said about the
adult sentence and that doesn't help him. But the YOA,
if he has activated, it would at least help him rehabilitate
maybe. So that's my rationale for accepting the YOA
sentence.

The court further noted,

Common Pleas deals primarily with about 90 percent of
what I've heard today. Pain and suffering and tragedy it's
caused. The one thing I learned early on, sentences can't
be taken as an indication of how bad it was, how much
damage was caused, because it has no correlation to it.

Victim subsequently filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, the State filed a motion
to dismiss the appeal, which this court denied.3

LAW/ANALYSIS

Victim argues the plea court erred in denying her motions as untimely and violated
her rights afforded by the Victims' Bill of Rights4 enacted through the South
Carolina Victims' Rights Act.5 Victim seeks "a finding that the [plea] court should
have heard from Victim prior to accepting the guilty plea because [failing to] do[]
so deprived Victim of an opportunity to be present and be heard regarding the
plea."

Although we deeply sympathize with the victims of Bowen Turner's violent
crimes, there is no practical remedy this court can offer. Victim's appeal
essentially requests an advisory opinion as to when a victim has a right to be heard
during a guilty plea, which will have no functional effect on the matter between the
parties in this appeal. The only parties with standing to appeal Turner's sentence
are Turner and the State.

3
Turner concurred with the State's motion.
4
S.C. Const. art. I, § 24.
5
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-1505 to -1565 (2015 & Supp. 2024).
A victim, . . . , possesses no rights in the appellate
process. Nothing in our Constitution or statutes provides
the "victim" standing to appeal the trial court's order.
Additionally, the rights granted by the South Carolina
Constitution and statutes are enforceable by a writ of
mandamus, rather than direct participation at the trial
level.

Reed v. Becka, 333 S.C. 676, 681, 511 S.E.2d 396, 399 (Ct. App. 1999). Although
the Victims' Bill of Rights confers numerous rights, including the right to be
notified of important prosecutorial events such as plea negotiations, it also
provides that "failure to comply should not be cause to invalidate or set aside the
orders of a court." State v. Price, 441 S.C. 423, 446, 895 S.E.2d 633, 645 (2023);
see e.g., S.C. Const. art. I, § 24(C)(1) ("A victim's exercise of any right granted by
this section is not grounds for dismissing any criminal proceeding or setting aside
any conviction or sentence."); § 16-3-1565(B) ("A sentence must not be
invalidated because of failure to comply with the provisions of this article.").

Once a criminal case has been resolved and the defendant
is sentenced, the alleged victim loses his victim status
under the Victims' Bill of Rights. The trial court cannot
use the Victims' Bill of Rights to re-open a completed
criminal proceeding. Further, even if the solicitor fails to
honor the Victims' Bill of Rights during a criminal
proceeding, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus
to re-open a criminal proceeding once it is resolved.

Ex parte Littlefield, 343 S.C. 212, 221, 540 S.E.2d 81, 85 (2000). Our appellate
courts have consistently applied this principle. See Price, 441 S.C. at 446–47, 895
S.E.2d at 645 (holding the State's failure to notify victims of a proceeding that
reduced the defendant's murder sentence violated the Victims' Bill of Rights and
Victims' Rights Act but declining to grant relief); Littlefield, 343 S.C. at 223, 540
S.E.2d at 87 (refusing "to re-open a case" based on violations of the Victims'
Rights Act); id. at 219, 540 S.E.2d at 85 (providing that "a victim's rights under the
Victims' Bill of Rights terminate when the criminal proceedings . . . against the
alleged perpetrator are resolved").

Consequently, the lack of standing and meaningful relief renders the instant case
moot, necessitating dismissal of the appeal. See Sloan v. Greenville County, 356
S.C. 531, 552, 590 S.E.2d 338, 349 (Ct. App. 2003) (alteration in original) ("A
case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect
upon [the] existing controversy." (quoting Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549
S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001))); id. ("[C]ases or issues which have become moot or
academic in nature are not a proper subject of review." (quoting Wallace v. City of
York, 276 S.C. 693, 694, 281 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1981)).

DISMISSED.

WILLIAMS, C.J., and MCDONALD and TURNER, JJ., concur.