South Carolina’s 1995 repeat-offender law allows prosecutors to seek life without parole for a person convicted of two or three serious or most serious crimes. It does not require prosecutors to seek that sentence. The archived state code assigns that decision to the solicitor; once a life notice is filed, the court must impose life, according to the Charleston City Paper’s account and the archived code.
How the law applied to Linen
Quintin Linen’s case illustrates how a later conviction can trigger a life sentence even when the earlier prison term was not fully served. The Charleston City Paper reported that Linen was 23 when arrested on October 15, 1987, in connection with a knife-point theft of $23 from a Majik Market in North Charleston. He pleaded guilty on January 28, 1988, received a 12-year sentence, and served six years.
In October 1996, Linen was charged with taking $900 from Budget Check Cashing on Rivers Avenue in North Charleston and holding a knife to a clerk’s throat. The City Paper reported that he was identified in a photo lineup, convicted in April 1997, and sentenced to life. Under the archived code, a prior sentence need not have been fully served before a life sentence may be imposed under this provision.
Claims about the convictions
Linen has said he pleaded guilty to the 1988 case because he was intimidated by the court process and that his lawyer, Edward M. Brown, told him a plea would avoid a maximum 25-year sentence. The City Paper reported that Linen later challenged the representation and sought post-conviction relief three times over the 1988 and 1997 convictions; all three petitions were denied.
The City Paper also reported that Linen’s sister, Sonya Linen, disputed that he could have held a knife during the 1996 robbery. She said he was recovering from a fall from a roof at The Citadel and had pins and rods in both arms. That is her account; Linen’s 1997 conviction stands. The paper reported that Allison Elder of Time Served reviewed some of Linen’s filings at its request and said procedural issues may have prevented a full hearing on his claim about the 1988 plea. Time Served does not represent Linen.
Possible parole consideration
The parole question is distinct from the court’s imposition of a life sentence. The City Paper reported Elder’s explanation that a person serving life may become eligible for parole consideration after at least 30 years in prison and reaching age 65, or after at least 20 years and reaching age 70. The Department of Corrections may request consideration for people meeting the required age and time-served conditions; the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services may assess whether age and health mean a person is no longer a threat.
Linen’s sister told the City Paper that he had been told he was not eligible for parole consideration. Separately, the paper reported that he was expected to meet possible eligibility requirements in four years, around age 65. Elder said Time Served was not aware of the provision having been used and that the organization might pursue it as clients reach the required ages. Linen turns 61 on November 28, according to the City Paper.
