' STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`
`IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
`
`H
`
`'
`
`I
`
`Appeal from Charleston County
`H
`’ Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge
`
`‘Jr1.-
`E1,
`
`..,
`La
`
`
`
`F EB I 9 2015
`
`Ggufiz MAppeals
`
`.
`
`V
`.
`4 - ~
`
`_
`
`i'.T:,iP,1i1‘i3,STATE»‘
`I
`in
`‘:3
`
`A
`
`V.
`b
`H
`. sHELDoN LAMAR KELLY,
`I
`
`,
`
`I
`
`RESPONDENT,
`
`APPELLANT
`
`H APPELLATE CASE NO. 2014-000918
`
`FINAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`
`-
`
`.1‘
`
`. DAVID ALEXANDER
`Appellate Defender
`
`South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense
`’ Division of Appellate Defense
`’
`PO Box 1 1589
`-
`
`Columbia, SC 29211-1589
`(803) 734-1343
`
`ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
`
`
`
`IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
`
`H
`
`'
`
`I
`
`Appeal from Charleston County
`H
`’ Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge
`
`‘Jr1.-
`E1,
`
`..,
`La
`
`
`
`F EB I 9 2015
`
`Ggufiz MAppeals
`
`.
`
`V
`.
`4 - ~
`
`_
`
`i'.T:,iP,1i1‘i3,STATE»‘
`I
`in
`‘:3
`
`A
`
`V.
`b
`H
`. sHELDoN LAMAR KELLY,
`I
`
`,
`
`I
`
`RESPONDENT,
`
`APPELLANT
`
`H APPELLATE CASE NO. 2014-000918
`
`FINAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`
`-
`
`.1‘
`
`. DAVID ALEXANDER
`Appellate Defender
`
`South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense
`’ Division of Appellate Defense
`’
`PO Box 1 1589
`-
`
`Columbia, SC 29211-1589
`(803) 734-1343
`
`ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
`
`
`
`I’
`
`'
`
`A
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS‘
`.................1
`.....
`.......
`........
`OF ‘CONTENTS
`..................
`............."V..........
`" TABLE OF AEJTHORITIES.........,............-..:.........
`....................................................
`STATEMENT OE ISSUE ON APPEAL........................Q................"A................................3 -
`_STJAT.E1\/’IENT..O4F THE CASE ....
`.....;.......
`............;.....................
`.....
`.........‘.....4
`ARGU’MENT.%.’....................
`...............
`................................
`.....
`..........................5
`CQNcLUS10N.............'...'......'.............
`.........
`.............
`......§.......;..........1o
`
`..........
`
`
`
`
`
`Ag’-..=~,;"~,‘;~‘,*-Z'.".*?;:aty-1'»..
`
`
`
`.,u
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`1
`
`7, 8
`.......
`.........................
`;_.7f': éiiahmn y,~i5idfi§1$,i’5:60 U.S. 48, 75 (2010)
`.........
`........... 7,8
` °**Mi11efr‘v_;‘5A1ab‘aiin'£’a‘,'152 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) ..u.............
`.........................
` i Siéféji}. 175, 547 S.E.2d 490 (2001) ..........
`.......
`........................................ 8
`
`S7"c'a’1é’8I;A"5’.IA<:)nes,:I§<i4’S.(‘3~. 48, 56 n.8, 543 S.E.2d 541 11.8 (2001).....................;....................... 8
`7"8‘ié{é "v"."st§p§.a d,-851 s.c. 199,569 S.E.2d 3-25 (2002).........;..............
`.....
`8
`
` '1 E1;Cénétifutloriéillfrovisions
`
`4
`
`r’
`
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5-7-'.-:-.~,v-m:‘;-.-_-2:-vr.-.v,;;.~=7":.w
`
`;_‘LLVM’.,-.3
`
`
`!_‘'. 2':-'~-‘
`
`.........................
`
`.......
`
`......,.......
`
`........
`
`.................~..§...................8
`
`‘
`
`V
`
`Cfiinst.
`.
`.2
`
`.......,..........._................................
`
`.............'.................... 7, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Appellant was ihdicted by a Charleston County grand jury for carjacking, possession
`
`4
`
`the commission oféa violent crime, and kidnapping. R. 5, l. 20 — 6, l. 25.
`"7, 20f4, appellant was tried before the Honorable "Roger M. Young, Sr., and ajury.
` Baldwin and Stephanie Linder represented the State. R. 1. Andrew Grimes
`'»(g/Ihrivstina
`represented appellant. R. l. The jury acquitted appellant of carjacking
`
`kiiifevlcharge.
`
`IR. 256, ll. 2 —__10. The jury convicted appellant of kidnapping. R.
`
` in A A‘. .2 e.i Young sentenced appellant to mandatory life imprisonment without
`
`
`of parole based on South Carolina’s recidivist statute. R. 261, l. 8 — 263, l.
`follows.
`'2
`
`" ' :1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`orrirnitted
`
`V‘
`
`its decision to acquit appellant Sheldon [Kelly (“Kelly”) of
`of a knife during the commission of a violent crime, the jury
`of the alleged victim’s story. R. 256,- ll. 2 — 10. Veronica Frutchey
`that when she was getting into her car after work, a black male she
`next to her car and said, “Move over, bitch.” R. 16, ll.
`1 — 23.
`had already started her car and that her driver’s side door was still
`36-‘ 41:9. ‘The man forced. his way into the car, put a knife to her stomach,
`anything stupid.” R. 17,11. 1 — 10.
`to jump out ofthe car. R. 18, ll. 3 — ll. The man grabbed her by
`into the car. R. 18, ll. 3 — ll. Frutchey screamed for help
`struggled with the man when he tried to put the car into gear. R.
`Slieligscratched him to make sure I had his-skin under my fingers...” R. 19,
`fled after two ofher co—workers came to her assistance. R. l9, ll. 5
`ég-Iworkers largely corroborated her account ofthe struggle and saw the
`';;4 e‘ 37, 1.’ 21. R. 42, 1. 10 — 46, 1. 14.
`a knife in the floorboard of Frutchey’s car, but it did not test
`' R. 63, 11. 11 — 18. R. 133, 11. 12 — 17. Also found in the car
`63, ll. 10 — 15. DNA collected from the hat matched Kelly. R.
`
`,
`
`.
`
`ARGUMENT '
`
`’
`
`lei5UnitedTStates and South Carolina constitutions forbid sentencing an adult
`
`btofimaiidatogg life without parole when one of his prior “strikes” was a crime
`
`a iuvenile.
`
`’
`
`A
`
`,
`
`.-.
`
`
`
`
`
`5126,
`
`collected from Frutchey’s fingernails matched Kelly. R. 125, ll. 16
`
`itestified in his own defense and denied carjacking or trying to kidnap
`' l_§l5,,fl.j22 '— 146, 1. 7. Kelly also denied haying a knife. R. 153, 11. 6 — 12.
`
`altercation with Frutchey as “a drug deal that went bad.” R. 146, ll. 8
`
`.
`
`f-E3
`
`inthe neighborhood behind Frutchey’s employer.
`
`147, 1. 9 — 148, '
`
`if
`
`1.1
`
`police .:te's'tif1.ed that this neighborhood was a high crime area with a lot of drug
`
`19 ‘-58, l. 8. Kelly worked at a trucking company on the same road as
`and often walked through the parking lot on his way to work. R;
`ll; .“l2LV—h.'148,l;l.- 9.
`A‘ He first met Frutchey in August 2011. R. 148, 11. 18 — 22.
`asked Kelly to buy cocaine for her. R149, 11. 7 — 21. Kelly
`cocaine for Frutchey on .“[n]umerous occasions.” R. 150, ll. 4 —
`
`A
`
`.7f5
`
`
`
`
`
`3:
`
`injquestion, Frutchey asked Kelly to buy a much larger amount of
`
`seyen lhgramshfor $225.00. R. 150, 1. 18 -1151, 1. 5. Kelly admitted that he
`
`stained to 5‘iip_dff’_ Frutchey and got a fake bag of cocaine from his supplier in addition
`
`3Iii,;5‘t_e' areal ba°gidf éeeaine for her $225.00. R. 153, 1. 22 — 156, 1. 7. When Kelly tried to
`
`I
`
`ii A
`
`l?rutc11ey“.the"_fake cocaine, she was not fooled and demandedher‘ money. R. 156, 1. 8 1
`
`1:’
`
`All
`
`ff
`
`described her as “belligerent,” and ‘-‘wild and crazy about it.” R. 157,
`began to hit Kelly in the face and held him in the car while he tried to
`
`158, l. 25. He finally escaped from her car and went home. R.
`
`b
`
`J
`
`*" "11- 6.3. defense argued that Frutchey fabricated the carjacking to hide her drug
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’ heriicoiteworkersi who witnessed her altercation with Kelly. R. 225, l. 19 — 229, l.
`23'2,’,11.71__' 11;.‘
`*
`
`‘
`
`‘~
`
`A
`
`
`
`if:
`
`the jury’s.verdict acquitting Kelly of carjacking and possession of a knife,
`
`convicting‘
`
`of kidnapping, the State placed on the record that it had served its
`
`.» ntent to seek lifewithout parole based on Kelly’s December 16, 1996, conviction for
`
`fivoluntary
`
`R. 256, ll. 2 — 10. Kelly objected to the sentence of mandatory ,
`
`iiliife iwithoutiparolesunder‘ both the South Carolina and federal constitutions. R. 262, l. 10
`
`'
`
`-
`
`
`
`1. 5.
`
`‘Tlieincident giving rise to the voluntary manslaughter conviction happened
`fourteen years old and he was convicted when he was fifteen years old. R.
`The State did not contest these facts. Citing Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct.
`‘-1
`(20 aadjotahata v. Florida, 5160 U.S. 48, 75 (2010), the defense argued that it was
`.iuncoiistitutionali'tojuse a‘ conviction«obtained against a person when he was a minor to
`1. sentence a‘defendant‘to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. R.
`i1‘(:)ifi
`The trial court rejected Kelly’s argument and sentenced him to life
`»_.
`;§vithodtpa1¥o1e, 1;: 2.6.3, 11.’ 6 — 15.
`
`'
`
`i
`
`‘
`
`'.,3~Disc1issiio1i"[l) H A
`
`
`
`5?
`
`‘Kelly, received a mandatory sentence ‘of life imprisonment based on a crime he
`
`when -hejwas fourteen years old.
`‘R. 262, ll. 14 — 17.
`In Graham, the United
`‘held “that for a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide the
`3’Eightl{i:l_}A;fnLendiiientiforbids the sentence of life without parole.” 560 U.S. 48, 75 (2010).
`
`‘‘
`"
`
` ,
`
`_-
`
`'
`
`
`
`Court extended this holding in Miller, stating, “We therefore hold that the
`
`A1:nendmen_t..forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life iniprison without the
`
`for juvenile offenders.” Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2469.
`
`It logically follows i
`
`
`
`the.Eigihth Amendment forbids mandatory life sentencing based on a
`
` l
`
`V‘
`
`‘A
`
`crimegcommitted as a juvenile.
`
` “ H.
`
`.-
`Tl1e_Court stated “thatlchildren are constitutionally different from adults for purposes
`‘ser1'te:ncing.’0"V0 Li. 2464. Children‘ have less moral culpability.
`I_d. at 2464-65.. The
`
`“[1-A .-
`
`I "
`5
`
`Eof
`
`Court emphasized the need for individualized sentencing for juveniles. Ld. at 2467.
`
`Courtistated that the sentencer must “havethe ability to consider the mitigating qualities
`
`South Carolina’s recidivist law took away the trial judge’s discretion and his
`
`2- “fiabilityhto iconsiderlanyvpossible range of sentences.’ Removing this discretion from the trial
`
`I
`
`I"
`
`"
`
`hjuidgellviolated Kelly’s Eighth Amendment rights.
`
`0' 4-.South'_Carlolin'a already holds that a juvenile adjudication may not be used as a
`
`T
`
`State {Ellis 345 SC." 175, 179-80, 547 S.E.2d 490, 492 (2001).
`
`In 2002, the
`
`'
`
`‘TL SKouth_'Carolina SupremeiCourt considered the exact question presented by this case. State
`
`ii
`
`7
`
`A
`
`.S:tandard,‘351l s.c.’7199, 204-07, 569 S.E.2d 325, 328-30 (2002).
`In Standard, the Court
`
`.' lthatpifila jluvenileghad beenutried and adjudicated as an adult, that conviction could be ,
` ‘
`., _a'nd:‘fe_dera1 appellate‘ cases to reach that conclusion. Li. For example,
`
`I_d_.' Standard relied on now-invalid reasoning in older United States
`
`as'a"strike;
`
`he1d't_1§:at “lengthy sentences or sentences of life without parole imposed upon
`
`.L
`
`"
`
`AV
`
`not violate contemporary standards of decency so as tozconstitute cruel and
`
`it
`
`it I.
`
`":iT_7.'_.
`
`puni_shmént.”l
`
`I_d, at 205, 569 S.E.2d at 329. This holding is no longer good law
`
`‘
`
`T:
`
`Miller The same analysis appliesito Kelly’s claim under the South
`’Cardlina Cdnstitution.‘- sc. Const. art. 1, § 15. State v. Jones, 344 s.c.-48, 56 n.8, 543
`
`I’
`
`n.8 (2001) (interpreting a cruel and unusual punishment challenge under
`‘Amendment and the South Carolina Constitution).
`
`
`
`
`
` I
`
`"5
`
`K»
`
`{Since Miller
`
`Graham have overruled the principles underlying Standard, it is_
`
`A‘ Q .3; time to} correct‘ this practice in South Carolina.‘ While this Court cannot overrule state
`
`in
`
`Court precedent, it can recognize when such precedent has been rendered invalid V
`
` I
`
`l decisions of the'United States Supreme Court. The Court should do so in this case and
`
`iii
`
`‘‘
`
`'‘Il(el1y’s hWOP sentence.
`
`43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A
`
`‘L
`
`T
`
`“if
`
`'tlie‘4'Wforegoing;p reasons,
`
`the" Court should overturn appel1ant’s sentence and
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`A
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`’-
`
`remand the case forpresentencing.
`
`
`
` ’}T:}j
`
`-T
`
`1'9“? day o:tV".P‘ebrua1'y,'20l5.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` David Alexander
`
`Appellate Defe
`
`er
`
`ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`,
`-"
`‘"_7.-
`
`.
`.
`
`
`A’
`
`I
`
`in
`
`1.,9,t,'i‘i,\".2:(i)1A5:
`
`I
`
`
`
`v «
`
`' ‘CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
`
`_i3‘The'uride_rsigned eertifies that to the best of my ability the Final Brief complies
`
`th\Rule 2ll(b),‘ SCACR, and the April 15, 2014 order frompthe South Carolina
`g
`4 3 Supreme Court 'entitled.“Revised Order Concerning'Personal Identifying Information and
`;- "Other ‘Sensitiv'e‘I1Vifo_m1ation in Appellate Court Filings.”
`I
`
`I S
`
`outh Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense
`Division of Appellate Defense
`POBox 11589
`
`Columbia, s. C. 29211-1589
`
`(803)734-1330
`
`-
`
`FEB 1 9 2015
`
`SOG‘Oul‘t0fAfp;peals
`
`
`
`
`
`..
`
`’
`.
`
`' STATE OE SOUTH CAROLINA
`IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
`
`4
`
`Appeal from Charleston County.
`Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge
`
`RECEIVED
`
`0
`
`FEB 1 9 2015
`
`so courtomppeals
`
`._ -TEESTATE,
`H
`A
`
`A
`
`
`
`V.
`
`E
`
`j 'SPLEL1jON LAMAR KELLY,
`
`RESPONDENT,
`L
`
`APPELLANT
`
`1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`"_Pv'Z.“'¢:v-4<—V...1
`
`A‘
`
`4
`
`undersigned attomeyu hereby certifies that a true copy of the Final Brief of
`Appellant in the above referenced case has been served upon Mark R. Farthing, Esquire, at
`. Rembert De_nnis"Building, 1000 Assembly Street, Room 519, Columbia, SC 29201, this 19”“
`day ofFebruary,-20l5§ ;
`
`4
`‘
`
`L
`
`A
`
`'
`
`
`David Alexander _
`‘Appellate Defender
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
`
`, _._... %_3":.1SUE__SCR1EED AND SWORN TO before me
`. ' .l9t",day,of‘pFebrua1'y,‘20,1:5.
`
`
`,
`
`'
`
`1‘ Notary Public for South Carolina
`_
`M {My Commission Expires; July 3,2023.
`
`I
`
`'
`
`(L.S.)
`
`.
`
`A
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
