Whether South Carolina's appellate courts improperly applied the mootness doctrine in a case involving an unconstitutional parole revocation hearing that resulted in an improper parole violation record

No question identified. : Mr. Justice filed a timely application for post-conviction relief under South Carolina’s Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-10 et seg. An evidentiary hearing occurred on February 1, 2017, and an Order of Dismissal was filed on August 2, 2017. The undersigned represented Mr. Justice as his case made its way through both of South Carolina’s appellate courts. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on May 4, 2022; the South Carolina Supreme Court issued its opinion on December 13, 2023. Justice v. State, 441 S.C. 623, 896 S.E.2d 319 (2023). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is due with this Court on March 12, 2024. Mr. Justice will invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The following issues of constitutional law will be presented for review: Whether South Carolina’s appellate courts failed to apply an exception to the mootness doctrine, where, as a result of an unconstitutional parole revocation hearing, Justice has a parole violation on his criminal record, where the blatantly illegal procedures employed by the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services are the standards by which they treat every unrepresented, indigent individual in South Carolina, where the remedy for future violations proposed by the state courts—filing a PCR application—was followed in this case yet failed to yield appellate review due to perceived mootness, and where a current South Carolina statute is unconstitutional based on longstanding United States Supreme Court precedent? The undersigned was previously an Appellate Defender at the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, a state agency. Most of the representation in this case occurred while employed in this capacity. In April 2023, the undersigned became the Pro Bono Director at the University of South Carolina School of Law. With the consent of Mr. Justice, representation has continued uninterrupted. This extension of time is requested because the job responsibilities at the law school are extensive and demanding. Due to these commitments, counsel has not yet had the opportunity to finalize the petition. Research and drafting have begun, but additional time is needed to properly present Mr. Justice’s federal constitutional claims to this Court. Petitioner’s counsel, Taylor D. Gilliam, is the Pro Bono Director at the University of South Carolina School of Law. In this capacity, counsel organizes monthly wills clinics across the state, where volunteer attorneys and law students assist members of the public with both wills and healthcare powers of attorney. Counsel also assists with expungement drives, driver’s license reinstatement efforts, homeless shelter legal clinics, and an upcoming name change clinic. Counsel is also the President of the South Carolina Bar Young Lawyer’s Division and has numerous meetings, assignments, and travel obligations associated with this leadership position. Counsel has consulted with the attorney currently representing the State of South Carolina, Matthew Buchanan, concerning this extension. Mr. Buchanan confirmed that he does not oppose this request for an extension. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests an order extending the time for filing his petition for a writ of certiorari for thirty days to and including April 11, 2024. Respectfully submitted, University of South Carolina School of Law Pro Bono Program 1525 Senate Street Room 386 Columbia, SC 29201 Attorney for Petitioner February 28, 2024