Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Tony Moore, Jr., Petitioner v. South Carolina

No.

•w_

6

■•r

/'

.

i

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Supreme Couit, u.S.

Filed

FEB 1 2 202'!

OFFICE QF THE Ctxp.X

Tony Moore, Jr. #188313

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

State of South Carolina

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

The South Carolina Supreme Court

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

\

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Tony Moore, Jr • / (5*188313

(Your Name)

Kershaw Correctiona Institution

(Address)

4848 Goldmine Hwy., Kershaw, S.C. 29067

(City, State, Zip Code)

(Phone Number)

TCCEIVED

AU6 1 5 2024

RECEIVED

JUL 1 9 2024

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

M

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

WHETHER PETITIONER'S CRITICAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH

1.

AMENDMENT IS BEING CONTINUOUSLY DENIED/VIOLATED, AND HIS STATUTORY RIGHT ENTITMENT IS BEING SEVERELY OVERLOOKED, CAUSING WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT?

2.

WHETHER THE STATE COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO HEAR PETITIONER'S LEGITIMATE

JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE WHEN IT LIMITED PETITIONER'S FILINGS TO THAT COURT,

AND THAT COURT ONLY?

WHETHER THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT IS IN ERROR FINDING IT RETAINS

3.

SUBJECT-MATTER-JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICING CLAIMS THE GRAND JURY PROCESS IN

SOUTH CAROLINA, IS BUT A SHAM AND COVER, AND NOT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED UNDER

ITS OWN CONSTITUTION/ OR STATUTORY LAWS?

i

LIST OF PARTIES

[x] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

RELATED CASES

Post Courier August 18, 2020 (Rubber Stamped S.C. Indictment Process)

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

End of Petition

APPENDIX B

End of Petition

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

I

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Brown v. State, 343 S.C. 342, 540 S.E.2d 846 (2001)

3

Edwards v. State 372 S.C. 493, 642 S.E.2d 738 (2007)

Gant v. Selph, 423 S.C. 333, 814 S.E.2d 523 (2018)

State v. McBride, 416 S.C. 379, 786 S.E.2d 435 (2016)

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006)

33

State v. Price, 441 S.C. 423, 895 S.E.2d 633 (S.C. 2023)

State v. Smalls, 354 S.C. 343, 613 S.E.2d 754 (S.C. App. Ct. 20031

State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637, 522 S.E.2d 745 (S.C. 2001)

City of Cola., v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm., 242 S.C. 528

State ex rel Martin v. Moore, 54 S.C. 556, 32 S.E. 700, 701

Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1962)

5

8

State v. Bailey, 292 S.C. 422, 709 S.E.2d 671 (S.C. 2001)

9

STATUTES AND RULES

S.C. code Ann §14-9-210

S.C. Code Ann. §14-5-820

OTHER

3

4

6

6

7

77.

J

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at

5 or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix__ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at Unpublished

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[x] is unpublished.

The opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court

appears at Appendix "b" to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[)d is unpublished.

1.

court

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was______________________

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: ____________

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including _

(date) on

(date)

in Application No.

A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ 55 For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix "A"

11/15/2023

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

______________________, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[x] An extension , of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including 7/6/2024

(date) on

_ (date) in

Application No.__ A___

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

i

I

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

South Carolina Constitution, Article I * / Section 3 "Due Process'

South Carolina Constitution,. Article I., Section 11, "Indictment Guarantees"

South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 14-9-210, "Preparation of Indictments"

South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 14-5-820. "Authorized Terms of General

Sessions Court to secure Indictments".

4

\

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

See Attached sheets 1-10.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT^)

_

In South Carolina, the process by which solicitors obtain has been and

still remains to be questioned, as a hot topic for the courts of the State. The

Greenville News, recently reported; "each time the Grand Jury meets in the 13th

Judicial Circuit, it considers about 900 cases in a single day". Thus, questions

were raisedo over the effectiveness of the South Carolina indictment process.

The grand jury system was set up as a check against prosecutorial vendettas'

and hasty indictments. But with the grand jury blazing through so many cases,

some have raised questions about how effective the panel can be. Furman Univer­

sity political science professor Don Aiesi, called the grand jury a "rubber st­

amp" for the solicitor's office. "The system isn't working", he said. "It has

not functioned effectively as any kind of buffer".

Here however, where Petitioner's claim align with the comprimizing effec­

tiveness of South Carolina's grand jury proceeding. It differs in the realm of

"whether certaian cases were properly indicted at all, consistent with the clear

unambiguous language of controlling South Carolina Statutes". Where such cases

as Petitioner's, was allegedly indicted during a term of court, "that was not

in session". Which remains to call into question, "if the solicitor boast of

being able to indict 900 cases in a sigle day", why would there be a need to

convene such a term of court, not authorized by statute?

In.addition, South Carolina's Highest Court issued an Order on August 25,

2016 detailing; "Petitioner would not be allowed to file and petition in any

of the lower courts challenging his 1995 conviction, unless he obtains per­

mission from the High Court. And again, Petitioner was reminded on August 4, 20-

1.

21, to gain such permission.

On or about September 21, 2023, Petitioner filed to the Highest South Caro­

lina State Court, complaining of Due Process violations in the course of obtain­

ing his criminal indictment (1995-GS-44-0035), that under the circumstances pre­

scribed within statute, "the court was not conferred jurisdiction by way of the

indictment process", rendering the subsequent conviction void for a lack there­

of. Based on such an important jurisdictional question, rather than assure it­

self of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court refused to address the merits, and is

why this Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari.

tARGUMENT TO QUESTION ONE)

Within South Carolina’s (Bill of Rights) Declaration of Rights. At Article

I., Section §3., it reads in no uncertain terms;

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of

the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged,

nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the

equal protection of the laws". (1970 (56) 2684; 1971(57) 315).

In addition, Article I., Section 11, reads in no uncertain terms:

"No person may be held to answer for any crime the jurisdiction

over which is not within the magistrate's court, unless on a pre­

sentment or indictment of a grand jury of the county where the

crime has been committed", (In relevant part).

Now turning to South Carolina's Legislative intent that is clearly outlined

in the relevant statute for this case. At §14-9-210, it reads unambiguously the

the following English Language:

"The county solicitor shall prepare and through the presiding judge

of the court of general sessions, submit to the grand jury, while

in attendance upon the court of general sessions; bills of indict2.

ment in all cases pending in the county in which the punishment

may exceed a fine of one hundred dollars or imprisonment for thirty

when such cases have not been previously acted on by the grand jury.

The gear! jury shall act thereon and report its action to the presiding

judge of the court of general sessions and said judge shall direct the

clerk of court of general sessions to report the same to the presiding

judge of the county court at its next ensuing term".

B.

In accordance with South Carolina Statutory Law, §14-5-820, Union County,

for which Petitioner's indictment and trial was allegedly had. Statutorily au­

thorized the courts of general session be held; "at Union the Fourth Monday of

February, the third Monday of May, the third Monday of September and the second

Monday of December. This was and is the law in March 1995, when Petitioner's

case went to trial".

In accordance with this jurisdictional claim in the course of depriving a

citizen of the Constitutional guarantees for which he was entitled on March 23,

1995, dealing with Due Process. Article I., Section 3., combined "the United

States Constitution as well as South Carolina's to secure these important ri­

ghts". The Court, according to this statutory design "was not authorized to in­

dict, try or sentence this Petitioner outside the terms of general sessions

court, rendering the result "void".

To say the least, "subject-matter-jurisdiction can be raised at any time

in any proceeding. And South Carolina Courts are refusing to address these im­

portant challenges". See Edwards v. State, 372 S.C. 493, 642 S.E.2d 738 (2007);

State v. McBride, 416 S.C. 379, 786 S.E.2d 435 (2016). In Brown v. State, 343

S.C. 342, 540 S.E.2d 846 (2001)(Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental to

the court power to hear and adjudicate cases). Such is a question of law, not

fact easily answered. Gant v. Selph, 423 S.C. 333, 814 S.E.2d 523 (2018)

3.:..

"reimprisoning" a minority inmate, based on procedural irregularities. Yet, the

"good for the ggnder is good for the goose, under the Equal Protection of Due

Process, is inapplicable".

In State v. Price, 441 S.C. 423, 895 S.E.2d 633 (S.C. 2003), the following

is recorded: "the Court of General Sessions, Richland County, L. Casey Manning,

J. signed a sealed order reducing sentence from 35 years to 19 for substantial

assistance to the State, and defendant was released from prison. The Supreme

Court issues common-law writ of certiorari, and the Attorney General filed ask­

ing for extraordinary writ and declaration that the order releasing defendant was

void.

The Court cited the below 5 certified holdings:

1. circuit court's hosting of private meetings in chambers to determine whether

to reduce sentence violated State and Federal constitutional right of public ac­

cess to criminal prosecution;

2.

circuit court lacked authority to seal the order reducing the sentence;

3.

solicitor's failure to notify victim's family of the proceeding to reduce

sentence violated Victim's Bill of Rights Act;

4. violation of Victim's Rights and Victim's Right Act did not warrant vacating

order; and

5.

circuit court fundamentally failed to "follow the law in reducing sentence".

Like Petitioner here, "the State filed a extraordinary writ", same as Peti­

tioner. Where the concerns within the 5 considerations above fail to come close

to the concern Petitioner remains to question "that a alleged indictment was se­

cured when on that date, general sessions court was not in sessions".

Under South Carolina's Constitution, Art. I., Section 11; "No person may

be held to answer for any crime the jurisdiction over which is not within magis-

5.

trate court, 'unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury of the coun­

ty where the crime has been committed'". (In relevant part) Seems to surplant

subject-matter-jurisdiction, by the course of "the process entitlement", deemed

"Due Process", as a fundamental buffer between the state and the Defendant. See

State v. Smalls, 354 S.C. 343, 613 S.E.2d 754 (S.C. App. Ct. 2003)(formal indict­

ment is condition precedent to valid waiver of presentment of charge to grand

jury, which is prerequisite to valid guilty plea)

The above Smalls case explains "one cannot validly submit a guilty plea

unless there is a valid waiver of the grant jury indictment for the charge, that

such is a "prerequisite" to the guilty plea.

See also State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637, 522 S.E.2d 745 (S.C. 2001), "State

Constitution requires a person be indicted by the grand jury before standing

trial for a crime. And in Smalls, the South Carolina Supreme Court stated; the

Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction to hear guilty pleas unless there has

been a valid indictment. Id. 354 S.C. 498.

F.

With the above in mind, coupled with "how easily the State Court invoked

its jurisdiction to hear the Attorney General's petition for extraordinary writ,

on issues of less importance". When Petitioner brings before the Court, "a. is­

sue of the most grave importance, dealing with 'no valid indictment, whereas

actual fraud, misrepresentation, and deception', in the process of alleging a

indictment's validity exist in this case".

But, as the normal and usual circumstance in such case as Petitioner. Which

mirror the history of Southern States. When correct issues are brought to the

attention of the Court, which may form the bases for relief. The Court simply

does not answer.

6.

Article V., Section 5 of S.C. Constitution.

G.

Article V, section 5 of the South Carolina Constitution and section 14-3-

310 of the South Carolina Code provides, "The Supreme Court shall have the power

to issue writs or orders of certiorari". Pursuant to this authority, we may use

a common-law writ of certiorari to correct errors of law, particularly where a

trial court exceeded its authority".. See City of Columbia v. S.C. Pub. Serv.

Comm'n, 242 S.C. 528, 532, 131 S.E.2d 705, 707 (1963)("A writ of certiorari is

used to keep an inferior tribunal within the scope of its powers")(citing Ex

parte Schmidts, 24 S.C. 363, 364 (1886); State ex rel Martin v. Moore, 54 S.C.

556, 560, 32 S.E. 700, 701 (1899).

Thus, it is the history of South Carolina Supreme Court "to issue orders of

certiorari and other common-law writs 'to correct errors of law"'. Which brings

about Petitioner's second question to this High Court.

2. WHETHER THE STATE COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO HEAR

PETITIONER'S LEGITIMATE JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES

WHEN IT FORMALLY EXCLUDED ANY OTHER INFERIOR COURT

FROM HEARING THESE MAHERS?

H.

Here, on the one hand, the above Constitutional Articles coupled with the

statutory authority in South Carolina dictates; "the extraordinary writ may be

exercised by the Supreme Court of important issues". Moreover, "the South Caro­

lina Supreme Court "restricted this Petitioner from filing his cause in any otther inferior court of the State". And as a "slap in the face of that order",

refuses to even answer the jurisdictional question presented, which should not

have placed any undue burden upon the State to resolve. Such was asked and an-

5.

swered in the Price case, whereas, this case presents no less extreme importance.

For to say within it's Article I., Section 3., of the South Carolina Constitu­

tion, to embody the United States Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protec­

tion Rights. That; "nobody shall be denied the privileges and immunites, nor be

denied life, liberty or property without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, nor denied the EQUAL

PROTECTION thereof". Seems to be mere verbalisms which fail to take seriously

the content of the meaning of words used. When Petitioner has made "a very va­

lid claim "has 1995 case was never properly indicted".

These writs derrive from "THE GREAT WRIT" of habeas corpus, "the most cele­

brated writ in English Law", 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries at 129, that ofers protection against "illegal restraint of confinement". See Fay v. Noia, 372

U.S. 391, 400 (1962). Habeas corpus relief is based on the principle "that in a

civilized society, the government must always be accountable to the judiciary

for a man:'s imprisonment'.'; "and if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform

with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his im­

mediate release". Id. 402.

Realizing Petitioner's claim hinges on the "fundamental Constitutional In­

dictment prerequisite". If the.proceedings complained about "cannot be shown to

conform with the fundamental requirements of the law". Petitioner is entitled to

"his immediate release", "no less than the State was entitled to reimprison Pri­

ce, in that case". Or, "Equal Protection under the law, is being intentionally

denied". How exactly, "can we have a trial or conviction and sentence, when no

indictment according to the laws, ever existed"?

8.

FINALLY AND IN CONCLUSION

I.

Here, the question is also posited "whether the circuit courts retain sub­

ject matter jurisdiction, to hear and determine matters in a felony criminal

case by way of a properly secured true billed, filed with the clerk of court,

indictment"?

In State v. Bailey, 292 S.C. 422, 709 S.E.2d 671 (S.C. 2011), seems to ex­

press; "it is a rule of universal observance in administering the criminal law

that a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular of­

fense charged in the bill of indictment".

Thus, it seems quite clear "the authority to convict a criminal defendant

for a offense must be charged in the indictment". And would be highly conflict­

ing to say on the otherhand; "a valid indictment is not necessary". It that were

so, it would make not difference whether the court convicted a defendant of a

not so charged.

In Conclusion, Due Process and Equal Protection under the Laws of the Uni­

ted States, and of South Carolina, "compels resolution in this case". The South

Carolina mandatorily required Petitioner to gain permission from it, before fi-1:

ling any substantive motion, petitions or writs. Petitioner complied.

The governing policies, procedures and law expressly mandate "issues con­

cerning subject-matter-jurisdction", whereas the denial of "DUE PROCESS", is

what led to the deprivation of authority in this case. Can be raised at any time

and a court "MUST ASSURE ITSELF OF JURISDICTION". The response (Failing to ans­

wer) in this case "is the harm being suffered by this Petitioner". And it is not

9.

I.

all improper,- too difficult nor places an extreme burden on the State Courts

to assure a man's imprisonment (even after some 30 years thereafter), conforms

with fundamental requirements of the law.

For these reasons, Petitioner request relief by way of this Honorable Uni­

ted States Supreme Court, granting the "writ of certiorari", and remand this

case back to the South Carolina Supreme Court, not to ignore, but to address

the merits of the claims presented, and any further relief this Court deems just

and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

)

/s/

Tony Moor^, Jr., #188313^

Kershaw correctional Inst.

4848 Goldmine Hwy.

Kershaw, S.C. 29067

cc: S.C. Attorney Gen.

S.C. Sup. Ct.

7/1(2024

10

of

10

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Here, certiorari should be granted in order to prevent the State of

South Carolina from wrongly imprisoning especially minority citizens under the

"rubber stamped" indictment process. Which fail to establish probable' cause

in the first instance, to carry criminal cases to a court of general sessions.

In this case in alignment with "Due Process", a criminal defendant is

guaranteed the protections of a proper indictment process before he can be law­

fully convicted and sent to prison. The Statutes of South Carolina, unambig­

uously defined and instructed "when and where such indictments could be secure".

However, South Carolina has become "a State without Laws", of the State that

does not abide by the laws as written.

On the date Petitioner's indictment was allegedly secured, "there was ab­

solutely 'no court of General Sessions on that date'". The Statute; governing

such procedure gives no alternatives or other option. Except when a "special

session is ordered", in which in this case, no special session was even alleg­

ed to have been ordered. The Courts of the State instead "fails to answer a

straight-forward jurisdictional argument". Where; "it lacks subject-matterjurisdiction to continue the imprisonment of this Petitioner".

Wherefore, this is the reason for grave importance in granting such a

petition where a person's life and liberty hangs in the balance.

-

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

7^

/

Cv

Date:

0 /8/a

cc:

Chad Wilson Burgess, Esquire

Sean Matthew Foerster, Esquire

The Honorable Renee Elvis

Cindy B. Hunt, Esquire

Kebra N. Simpson, Esquire

Saquisha Octavia Tobin, Esquire

Robert Michael Dudek, Esquire

William M. Blitch, Jr., Esquire

Jerome Garcia

Alan McCrory Wilson, Esquire

Zachary William Jones, Esquire

Demario Cunningham

Timothy Johnson, #346270

Tony Moore, Jr. #188313

Williamsburg County Probate Court

Anthony McKnight, Sr.

Devanna Thomas-Cardona

J. Benjamin Connell, Esquire

Kershaw County Court

Diana Jordan

Richland County Family Court

Lorraine Callison Moran, Esquire

Adam L. Whitsett, Esquire

Matthew A. Johnson

State Election Commission