{"id":2625,"date":"2021-07-25T14:32:30","date_gmt":"2021-07-25T19:32:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2625"},"modified":"2021-08-03T14:33:45","modified_gmt":"2021-08-03T19:33:45","slug":"in-re-griffin-s-c-ct-app-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/07\/25\/in-re-griffin-s-c-ct-app-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"In re Griffin (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">In re Griffin, No. 2018-001975 (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant pled guilty but mentally ill to a sex offense and was sentenced to twenty years&#8217; imprisonment. Prior to his release, the state moved to commit him under the state&#8217;s SVP commitment scheme. Prior to trial Appellant moved for a competency evaluation which was denied. The Appellant was found to be a SVP and appealed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong> The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that given the existence of other due process protections in the statutory scheme, a finding of competence is not a requirement for commitment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2021\/08\/South-Carolina-Court-of-Appeals-Opinion.pdf\">South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>South Carolina Court of Appeals opinion holding that a competency evaluation is not a requirement of Due Process in the context of state SVP proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/07\/25\/in-re-griffin-s-c-ct-app-2021\/\" class=\"more-link\">In re Griffin (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":836,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[54,47,218],"class_list":{"0":"post-2625","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-civil-commitment-cases","7":"tag-4th-cir","8":"tag-due-process","9":"tag-south-carolina","10":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2625","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/836"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}