# State v. Hill

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 8, 2006 · 368 S.C. 649

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616047

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner, v. Gary Thomas HILL, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** May 8, 2006
- **Citations:** 368 S.C. 649; 630 S.E.2d 274; 2006 S.C. LEXIS 152
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pleicones
- **Judges:** Toal, Moore, Waller, Burnett, Pleicones
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9616047

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating evidence is material if the cumulative effect of the suppressed evidence results in a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different
- holding that in a revocation proceeding, a probationer is subject to a deprivation of "limited liberty" because "he is already covered with a criminal sentence"
- recognizing the Court’s extension of the Brady disclosure rule to guilty plea and sentencing procedures
- holding Brady does not apply in revocation proceedings because of the lower eviden-tiary threshold

## Opinion text

*662 Justice PLEICONES
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision. I write separately, however, because in my opinion neither the Rule 5 issue nor the Brady issue was preserved for appeal. The circuit court did not rule on either claim, instead directing Respondent to file a motion under S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-290 (Supp.2005). 11 Respondent neither objected to this ruling nor filed a motion pursuant to the statute. Accordingly, no issue involving Respondent’s discovery request was preserved for appellate review, and the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the merits of Respondent’s appeal. E.g., State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259 , 589 S.E.2d 6 (2003). I would therefore reverse the Court of Appeals, but would not reach the substantive issues.
. Like the trial judge, I believe that discovery in probation revocation proceedings is governed, at least in the first instance, by the statute.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616047. Public record. Not legal advice.