State v. Parks

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Devarous S. L. Parks, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Date published: Apr 17, 2019

Appellate Case No. 2015-000953 (S.C. Apr. 17, 2019)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2015-000953 Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-021

04-17-2019

The State, Respondent, v. Devarous S. L. Parks, Appellant.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. General Counsel Matthew C. Buchanan, of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

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.

Appeal From Greenville County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. General Counsel Matthew C. Buchanan, of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Appellant argues the circuit court erred in ordering GPS monitoring pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-540(A) (Supp. 2018) "without an individualized on-the-record showing and finding that it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (2015) [(per curiam)]." After carefully reviewing the record, we find Appellant's argument that he was denied an individualized hearing is based on a false premise. The circuit court—specifically citing Grady —weighed the need for monitoring in the context of Appellant's offense, criminal history, and the like, thus giving Appellant the very hearing he now contends was lacking. Accordingly, we decline to hold at this time that the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by Grady, requires an individualized hearing before imposing GPS monitoring under all subsections of section 23-3-540 ¹ and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sinclair, 275 S.C. 608, 610, 274 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1981) (holding when the appellant has already obtained the only relief he seeks on appeal, there remains nothing left for this Court to decide); State v. Parris, 387 S.C. 460, 466, 692 S.E.2d 207, 210 (Ct. App. 2010) (same).

1 But see State v. Ross, 423 S.C. 504, 515, 815 S.E.2d 754, 759 (2018) (holding GPS monitoring under section 23-3-540(E) must be ordered by the circuit court "only after the court finds electronic monitoring would not be an unreasonable search based on the totality of the circumstances presented in an individual case").

AFFIRMED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and Acting Justice Thomas E. Huff, concur.