Doe v. Metts ( 2012 )

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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Jane Doe, Respondent,
v.
James R. Metts, Sheriff, Lexington County, and Robert
Stewart, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division,
Appellants.
Appellate Case No. 2009-145426
Appeal From Lexington County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-612
Submitted October 2, 2012 – Filed November 14, 2012
AFFIRMED
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General David A. Spencer, of Columbia, for
Appellants.
James Mixon Griffin, of Lewis Babcock & Griffin, LLP,
of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this declaratory judgment action, the Sheriff of Lexington
County and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) (collectively,
Appellants) appeal the trial court's order finding Jane Doe relieved from the sex
offender registration requirements due to her pardon. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edwards v. State Law
Enforcement Div., 395 S.C. 571, 576, 720 S.E.2d 462, 464 (2011) (holding
Edwards' "pardon relieved [him] from all direct and collateral consequences of his
pardoned crime, which would necessarily include placement on the sex offender
registry and continuous compliance with its registration requirements"); id. at 576-
77, 720 S.E.2d at 464-65 (holding the 2005 and 2008 amendments to section 23-3-
430 of the South Carolina Code changed rather than clarified the law, and "[t]he
purpose of the amendment evinces the legislature's intent to except the sex
offender registry requirements from the broad relief afforded by the pardon
statute"); id. at 580-82, 720 S.E.2d at 466-67 (declining to adopt the State's
definition of remedial, and holding the legislature's 2005 and 2008 amendments to
section 23-3-430 of the South Carolina Code are not procedural and cannot be
retroactively applied).
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.