# State v. Brown

> Court of Appeals of South Carolina · March 14, 2002 · 349 S.C. 414

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570612

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE, Respondent, v. Leonard BROWN, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of South Carolina
- **Decided:** March 14, 2002
- **Citations:** 349 S.C. 414; 563 S.E.2d 339; 2002 S.C. App. LEXIS 65
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stilwell
- **Judges:** Shuler, Cureton, Stilwell
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570612

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding a probationer should have been provided the opportunity to comply with an ambiguous condition of his probation before being revoked for violation thereof
- reversing trial court’s revocation of probation where vague probation condition requiring sex offender to “obtain treatment” resulted in confusion among the probationer and probation and mental health officials

## Opinion text

STILWELL, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent, solely because I believe the specific wording of the additional condition of his probation that Brown “must obtain treatment” is controlling.
The discussion centering on whether Brown must “complete treatment” or “admit guilt” in order to get treatment I submit totally misses the point. In my opinion, it was incumbent on Brown to do whatever was necessary to comply fully with the condition of his probation. If he was rejected at one facility, the burden was on Brown to go back to his probation officer and explain that he could not obtain treatment at that location and seek another source to “obtain treatment.”
It is not appropriate to allow Brown to sit idly by in the hopes that his non-compliance would be tolerated and then ultimately excused.
I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570612. Public record. Not legal advice.