Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - March 2021

Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.


3-3-2021 - Opinions

5806 - State v. Plumer

Ontavious Derenta Plumer appeals his convictions for attempted murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred by (1) refusing to charge the jury on the law of self defense, (2) denying his motion to relieve trial counsel, (3) refusing to qualify a witness as an expert, and (4) sentencing him to five years' imprisonment in addition to his sentence of life without parole. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

5807 - Pinckney Point, LLC v. Beaufort County

In this breach of contract action, Road, LLC and Pinckney Point, LLC appeal the trial court's order granting Beaufort County's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Road, LLC argues the trial court erred by finding that (1) there was no evidence to support the jury's finding of breach of contract, (2) the $5 million in damages were speculative, and (3) the contract was a nullity. We affirm.

3-10-2021 - Opinions

5808 - State v. Boston

This appeal arises from the decision of the Charleston County Circuit Court to deny Darell Boston's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a knock and talk investigative technique by law enforcement. Boston was convicted of manufacturing crack cocaine and sentenced to seventeen years' imprisonment. We affirm.

5809 - Clark v. Philips Electronics

Following being injured in an accident while working for Phillips Electronics, Lamar Clark filed for worker's compensation, asserting he was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. After a hearing, the Single Commissioner found Clark was entitled to such benefits. Phillips appealed to the Appellate Panel, and it reversed, finding Clark unentitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Clark now appeals, claiming the Panel's order is not supported by substantial evidence, and several of its factual findings are clearly erroneous. We agree with Clark and reverse and remand.

3-17-2021 - Opinions

5810 - In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Richard Ridley

Richard Ridley appeals his commitment to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (the Department) as a sexually violent predator (SVP). On appeal, Ridley argues the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding his diagnosis of Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder ? Biastophilia/Non Consent (OSPD ? Biastophilia/Non-Consent). We affirm.

3-24-2021 - Opinions

5811 - Pressley v. Sanders

Eric Sanders appeals the trial court's order granting Henry Pressley's motion for a new trial nisi additur. We affirm.

5812 - State v. Barksdale

In this criminal appeal, the State appeals the trial court's suppression of incriminating statements that Leon L. Barksdale made regarding his alcohol consumption prior to a traffic accident. The State argues (1) the record contains no evidence to support the court's ruling that Barksdale was in custody at the time he was questioned regarding his alcohol consumption; (2) the court erred by utilizing an incorrect definition of "custody" as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny; and (3) the court improperly relied on the subjective intentions and knowledge of the officer that questioned Barksdale rather than the totality of the circumstances. We reverse and remand.

3-31-2021 - Opinions

5813 - Patel v. BVM Motel, LLC

In this appeal from the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission, BVM Motel, LLC d/b/a Best Western Point South (Employer) and Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Carrier) challenge the Appellate Panel's finding that Hansaben Patel's death was compensable. Employer and Carrier also seek reversal of the calculation of Decedent's average weekly wage. We affirm.