Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2025

State v. Herbert E. Pray

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided March 26, 2025

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court State of South Carolina, Petitioner, v.

Herbert E. Pray, III, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000972

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Aiken County Clifton B. Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2025-MO-031 Heard March 11, 2025 – Filed March 26, 2025

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor John William Weeks, of Aiken, all for Petitioner.

Robert Irvin Sussman, of Robert I. Sussman, P.C., of Augusta, GA, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Pray, Op. No. 2023-UP-067 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 22, 2023). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.1 DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

KITTREDGE, C.J., FEW, JAMES, HILL and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

1 At the time Respondent's DUI charge was dismissed by the magistrate, this Court had not decided State v. Taylor, 436 S.C. 28, 870 S.E.2d 168 (2022), or State v. Lowery, 443 S.C. 473, 905 S.E.2d 361 (2024). In those two cases, we held per se dismissal of a DUI charge was not required when Miranda warnings were not administered in the manner required by subsection 56-5-2953(A) of the South Carolina Code (2018). Therefore, as acknowledged by the State during oral argument, the State was precluded from raising the per se dismissal issue on appeal.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.