State v. Smith

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.

Fred Smith, III, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-199107

Appeal From Cherokee County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-443
Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 27, 2013

REVERSED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Matthew C. Buchanan, of the Department of Probation,
Parole, and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Counsel for appellant filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious grounds for
appeal and requesting permission to withdraw from further representation. The
Court denied the request to withdraw and directed the parties to file additional
briefs.

After careful consideration of the record and briefs, the judgment of the lower
court is reversed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
State v. Miller, 404 S.C. 29, 37, 744 S.E.2d 532, 537 (2013) (holding probation
cannot be tolled simply because a person is committed to the Department of
Mental Health for mental health treatment as a sexually violent predator); id. at 37-
38, 744 S.E.2d at 537 ("[T]olling of probation is appropriate where the authorities
could not supervise the defendant due to the defendant's wrongful acts."); id. at 38,
744 S.E.2d at 537 ("[C]ivil commitment, whether in a drug treatment center,
mental health clinic, or other facility, does not give rise to tolling, and it appears
inconsistent to treat those under civil commitment in the [sexually violent predator
treatment] program any differently in the absence of some legislative directive to
do so.").

REVERSED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.