| Supreme Court |
| Case of the Month |
| October 2010 |
Case Overview
The State, Respondent, v. Reginald R. Lattimore, Appellant.
The State, Respondent, v. Andrew James Harrelson, Jr., Appellant.
Appellant Harrelson pled guilty in the Court of General Sessions in McCormick County to committing a lewd act on a minor. His sentence included active electronic monitoring (GPS monitoring), as set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-540(A) (Supp. 2009). Appellant Harrelson objected to the imposition of indefinite electronic monitoring on him at the age of eighteen, his age at the time of sentencing, on the basis that it violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Appellant Lattimore pled guilty in the Court of General Sessions in Lexington County to committing a lewd act on a minor. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of three years' imprisonment and five years' probation. He was subsequently charged with violating the conditions of probation. Following a hearing, he was found in willful violation of the conditions of probation. He was continued on probation, but was placed on GPS monitoring pursuant to section 23-3-540(A). Appellant Lattimore objected to being placed on GPS monitoring based, in part, on his assertion lifetime monitoring was excessive and harsh and therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Both appellant Harrelson and appellant Lattimore argue on appeal that, based on the facts of their cases, lifetime monitoring constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These cases were argued at 10:30 on Wednesday, October 6, 2010, in the Supreme Court Courtroom.Case Briefs
Oral Arguments
View Oral Arguments
(100:00:49 minutes playing time)