February 3, 2020
Partner Travis Dayhuff and Senior Paralegal Tammie Pope recently obtained parole for a Laurens man who had been denied parole since 2001 based on erroneous interpretations of the number of votes necessary for parole by the S.C. Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services (DPPPS).
In 2015, Dayhuff and Pope began assisting inmate David Rose in his effort to obtain parole. Rose sought out the Nelson Mullins team after learning about Barton v. the S.C. Board of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, in which Dayhuff and Pope had earned a S.C. Supreme Court ruling that DPPPS had been requiring inmates to receive more votes at hearings than necessary to obtain parole in violation of ex post facto and the parole statute.
Rose, like Barton, had received the requisite number of votes for parole at a hearing in 2001. But DPPPS took the position that Rose did not have enough evidence of the vote count to receive parole under the Barton case. DPPPS’s position was particularly unfair and frustrating as DPPPS had failed to make and keep appropriate records of parole hearings, Dayhuff said.
Before he became the Firm’s client, Rose litigated pro se against DPPPS for more than 10 years. Dayhuff and Pope took Rose’s case to the Administrative Law Court, where they were successful, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Dayhuff then appealed to the Supreme Court and argued the case in October. The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion Jan. 29 reversing the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court remanded Rose’s case back to DPPPS so that Rose could receive the parole he should have received 19 years ago, after his 2001 parole hearing.
Rose is the 17th client who has gained freedom through parole with help from attorneys in Nelson Mullins’ Parole Project since 2003.
These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.