Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1990

Re Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal & Postconviction Relief Cases

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided July 11, 1990 · Chandler, Finnev, Gregory, Harwell, Toal

321 S.C. 563; 471 S.E.2d 454; 1990 S.C. LEXIS 225

Cases that cite this one

42 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re Abu-Ali Abdur'rahman, Movant. Abu-Ali Abdur'rahman v. Ricky Bell, Warden (6th Cir. 2004)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel (Supreme Court of the United States 1999)
State v. Lyles (S.C. 2009)
In re: Abdur'Rahman v. (6th Cir. 2004)
State v. McKennedy (S.C. 2002)
Blasi v. Attorney General of Com. of Pennsylvania (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 2000)
Rose v. Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution (District Court, D. South Carolina 2021)
Farmer v. Baldwin (Or. 2009)
Dunlap v. State (S.C. 2007)
Douglas v. State (S.C. 2006)
Lambert v. Blackwell (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2001)
Mitchell v. Duncan (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
Dunbar Jr. v. Stonebreaker (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
Bennett v. Stirling (District Court, D. South Carolina 2016)
Thomas v. Eagleton (District Court, D. South Carolina 2010)
Stewart v. Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution (District Court, D. South Carolina 2010)
Ellison v. State (S.C. 2009)
Haggins v. State (S.C. 2008)
Crowell v. Knowles (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2007)
Whelchel v. Bazzle (District Court, D. South Carolina 2006)
Lambert v. Blackwell (3d Cir. 2004)
Lambert v. Blackwell (3d Cir. 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

In 1979, the General Assembly created the South Carolina Court of Appeals for the purpose of reducing South Carolina’s appellate backlog. The Court of Appeals reviews criminal as well as civil appeals and this Court reviews its decisions by writ of certiorari only where special reasons justify the exercise of that power.

We recognize that criminal and postconviction relief litigants have routinely petitioned this Court for writ of certiorari upon the Court of Appeals’ denial of relief in order to exhaust all available state remedies.1 We therefore declare that in all appeals from criminal convictions or postconviction relief matters, a litigant shall not be required to petition for rehearing and certiorari following an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals in order to be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies respecting a claim of error. Rather, when the claim has been presented to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and relief has been denied, the litigant shall be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies. This order shall become effective immediately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George T. Gregory. Jr. C.J. /s/ David W. Harwell A.J. /s/ A. Lee Chandler A.J. /s/ Ernest A. Finnev. Jr. A.J. Is/ Jean H. Toal A.J.

See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)-2254(c) (1977).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.