6-25-2013 South Carolina:
In
State v. Miller, the supreme court held that civil commitment is not a categorical exception that permits the State to toll the probationary period for a person civilly committed.
In 2001, Miller pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a child under the age of sixteen. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, suspended upon the service of ten years in prison and five years of probation. In 2005, his probation began, but he was not released from custody because a jury determined that he was a sexually violent predator under the
Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Act.
In 2008,
the probation officer issued a citation for a parole violation to give the circuit court jurisdiction even though Miller had not violated any condition of his probation. The probation officer sought to have Miller’s probation tolled because he was civilly committed in the Department of Mental Health’s custody. The circuit court tolled probation.
The court of appeals affirmed the decision because “Miller was unable to comply with all of the conditions of his probation while committed as an SVP and that he would benefit from supervision while in the community.” The court of appeals stated that Miller’s conduct in committing a lewd act upon a child was the reason he could not comply with probation, and, thus, probation should be tolled.
The supreme court stated that “tolling of probation must be premised on a violation of a condition of probation or statutory directive.” Because Miller did not violate his probation, the supreme court held that the probationary period should not be tolled.
The State argued that “Miller’s probationary period should be tolled because he is receiving mental health treatment in the SVP program and is, therefore, unavailable for community supervision.” The court rejected the State’s argument, stating that a rule requiring tolling for SVPs should be created by the General Assembly and not by the courts.
..Source.. by SCLawBlog
