 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hill5/11/2004
On November 4, 1991, Hill was convicted of second-degree arson, second-degree burglary, malicious injury to personal property, driving under the influence (fourth offense), and criminal domestic violence (third offense). The judge sentenced Hill to twenty years imprisonment, suspended upon the service of ten years and five years probation. Hill was granted parole on July 28, 1996. His parole ended on February 25, 1997, and his probation began immediately thereafter. When the events that are the subject of this appeal took place, Hill had completed approximately four years and eight months of his probation.
On October 24, 2001, Hill's probation officer, Marshall Evans, received a call from the Department of Social Services ("DSS"). DSS informed Evans that it had reason to believe Hill possessed firearms and had been pointing them at his son. To further investigate this information, Evans called Hill and asked him to come to his office. Hill went to see Evans as requested on October 25, 2001.
Evans confronted Hill with the information received by DSS and asked whether he did in fact possess any weapons. Hill admitted that his son owned a.22 caliber rifle, which he had received for his birthday. Hill agreed to let Evans and other probation officers search his house for weapons, but the agreed upon search never took place.
While in Evans's office, Hill asked if he could get a drink of water. Evans agreed and accompanied Hill as he went into the hallway. After getting some water, Hill turned and headed down the hall towards the exit. Although Evans asked Hill to stop, he did not respond and instead proceeded out of the building where he locked himself in his car. Evans testified that at least three other probation officers were involved in trying to "chase" Hill down.
The officers surrounded Hill's car and attempted to gain entry. Despite the officers' commands to stop, Hill began to drive out of the parking lot notwithstanding the proximity of the officers to his car. At this point, two of the officers opened fire on Hill's car. Hill's car was hit several times in numerous places including the rear window, the side window, the trunk, and the rear quarter panel. Hill received three gunshot wounds, one in the head and two in the back. Although the officers shot Hill three times, he never stopped his car. He was arrested some time later while seeking treatment at a hospital.
Hill hired attorney James Brislane to represent him at the probation revocation hearing. On November 1, 2001, Brislane filed motions under Rule 5, SCRCrimP, and Brady v. Maryland.*fn1 Hill asserts on appeal these motions were filed to determine exactly what happened on the day of the incident. Hill believed he was entitled to the following: (1) the names of witnesses that supported his version of the incident; (2) written statements of the probation agents; (3) Anderson City Police Department investigative materials; and (4) the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division ("SLED") report.
On November 11, 2001, Brislane moved for a continuance of the probation revocation hearing. At the hearing on the motion, the court informed Brislane that because the probation and parole department's records were confidential,*fn2 neither a Rule 5 motion nor a Brady motion were appropriate for obtaining the requested information. The court instructed Brislane to find the statute applicable to the parole department's records and to serve the appropriate motion on counsel. The court also informed Brislane it would hear the motion once correctly made.
The record does not disclose any motions made according to the court's instructions prior to the probation revocation hearing, which was held on December 21,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|