Renwick D. Mose, Petitioner,
State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2015-000609
Submitted February 9, 2017
From Williamsburg County R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit
Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina
Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney
General Julie Amanda Coleman, of Columbia, for Respondent.
BEATTY, CHIEF JUSTICE
granted certiorari to review the dismissal of Renwick
Mose's application for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR). Mose
contends that, although the Clerk of Court formally stamped
his application as "filed" three days after the
statute of limitations period ended, he complied with the
one-year statute of limitations because he delivered his
application to prison authorities for mailing within one year
of the date of his conviction. Mose now seeks reversal of the
PCR judge's ruling so that he may receive a PCR hearing
on the merits of his application. We reverse and remand.
Factual / Procedural History
March 7, 2013, Mose pled guilty to the lesser-included
offense of burglary in the second degree and as indicted for
assault and battery in the first degree, pursuant to
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). The
plea judge sentenced Mose to twelve years' imprisonment
for burglary and ten years' imprisonment for assault and
battery, to be served concurrently. Mose did not appeal his
guilty plea or sentences.
PCR application, dated February 18, 2014, Mose alleged that
he was denied due process, effective assistance of counsel,
and his right to a speedy trial. The Verification and
Application to Proceed Without Payment of Costs both indicate
they were sworn to and subscribed before a notary public on
February 18, 2014. However, Mose's PCR application was
stamped "filed" by the Williamsburg County Clerk of
Court on March 10, 2014.
State filed a Return and moved to dismiss Mose's PCR
application, arguing that the application was barred by the
one-year statute of limitations as provided by section
17-27-45(A) of the South Carolina Code (2014). By order dated
October 1, 2014, the PCR judge issued a Conditional Order of
Dismissal, which allowed Mose twenty days to submit factual
or legal reasons why his application should not be dismissed.
filed a response in which he maintained he placed the PCR
application in the prison mailbox on February 18, 2014, the
day the PCR application was notarized. Mose asserted the
application was deemed "filed" at the time it was
mailed pursuant to the "prison mailbox rule" as
enunciated in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
Mose also attached an affidavit in which he stated an
associate warden at the prison investigated the date Mose
submitted his PCR application and discovered the application
was mailed on February 18, 2014, and the envelope used to
mail the application contained the same date.
order dated February 5, 2015, the PCR judge summarily
dismissed Mose's PCR application, finding Mose filed it
outside of the one-year statute of limitations.
Standard of Review
actions, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Butler
v. State, 286 S.C. 441, 334 S.E.2d 813 (1985).
"This Court gives great deference to the factual
findings of the PCR court and will uphold them if there is
any evidence of probative value to support them."
Sellner v. State, 416 S.C. 606, 610, 787 S.E.2d 525,
527 (2016). "Questions of law are reviewed de
novo, and ...