What could a South Carolina municipal court do when someone failed pretrial intervention and could not be reached?

Plain-English summary

In a letter dated January 5, 2004, South Carolina's Attorney General's office said a solicitor could resume pending charges when a defendant violated a pretrial intervention agreement. For participants whom the solicitor could not locate after their cases returned to municipal court, the office told the judge to ask the solicitor how to proceed in each case.

The letter described one possible course: certified notice of a court date to the defendant's last known address, warning that the case could be tried in the person's absence and that a bench warrant could follow a conviction. It did not prescribe that course for every case. It also suggested adding more explicit warning language to future PTI forms.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Municipal judges and solicitors

The opinion assigned the prosecution decision to the solicitor after a PTI violation and directed the municipal judge to seek the solicitor's guidance on an unreachable defendant. Its notice-and-trial sequence was presented as a possible method.

PTI participants

The judge reported that participants had signed forms saying failure to complete PTI would return their cases to court. The opinion also referred to notice in their bail bonds about the possibility of trial in their absence if they failed to appear.

Common questions

Did failed PTI automatically end the criminal charge?
No. The opinion quoted a provision under which the solicitor could terminate participation and resume pending prosecution after a program violation.

What if the solicitor could not find the defendant?
The AG advised the municipal judge to ask the solicitor how to proceed in that case and gave certified notice to the last known address as one possible step.

Did the opinion say every missing defendant must be tried in absentia?
No. It described that as a possible approach after notice, followed by a bench warrant if a conviction resulted.

Background and statutory framework

The Greenwood municipal judge asked how to handle people who failed PTI and could not be reached when charges returned to court. The opinion discussed the statute governing successful completion and violations of PTI agreements, then addressed notice and prosecution on the facts supplied.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-22-150 and Section 17-22-90.

Source note

The official PDF visibly carries both “Alan Wilson” letterhead and a “January 5, 2004” date. This page reproduces that date as printed; the PDF should be consulted for the underlying document.

Official title

Referenced the situation involving defendants who fail to complete a pretrial intervention program (PTI) and questioned how these cases are handled when returned to the municipal court for prosecution.

Requester

Requested by The Honorable Lee B. Miller, Municipal Judge, City of Greenwood.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/referenced-the-situation-involving-defendants-who-fail-to-complete-a-pretrial-intervention-program-pti-and-questioned-how-these-cases-are-handled-when-returned-to-the-municipal-court-for-prosecution/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/cn4nk1ip/millerl-os-767-1-final-opinion-1-5-2004.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON

ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 5, 2004

The Honorable B. Lee Miller

Municipal Court Judge, City of Greenwood
Post Office Box 40

Greenwood, South Carolina 29648-0040

Dear Judge Miller:

In a letter to this office you referenced the situation involving defendants who fail to complete a pretrial intervention program (PTI) and questioned how these cases are handled when returned to the municipal court for prosecution. You indicated that the solicitor’s office has lost all contact with these individuals and had not been able to contact them at the address or telephone number supplied when these individuals entered PTI. You indicated that these individuals were advised that if they failed to complete the PTI program, their cases would be returned to municipal court for prosecution and each signed a form which contained language of this nature.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-22-150 (2003), in the event an offender successfully completes a PTI program, there is a noncriminal disposition of the charge or charges placed against the offender. However, as set forth in subsection (b),

In the event the offender violates the conditions of the program agreement: (1) the solicitor may terminate the offender’s participation in the program; (2) the waiver executed pursuant to Section 17-22-90 shall be void on the date the offender is removed from the program for the violation and (3) the prosecution of pending criminal charges against the offender shall be resumed by the solicitor.

As to the disposition of charges as to a defendant who cannot be located or contacted, as we discussed in our telephone conversation, you should contact the solicitor’s office for guidance as to how they wish to proceed on a particular case. One possible means of proceeding would be to send that individual a certified letter to the last known address supplied to the solicitor’s office which would provide a court date for the disposition of that defendant’s case. Such letter would notify the defendant that he would be tried in his absence if he fails to appear and a bench warrant would be issued following the trial in absence assuming a conviction was obtained. Assuming the defendant does not appear, he could be tried in his absence and a bench warrant issued for his arrest. As I mentioned in our conversation, when that defendant executed a bail bond, he was already put on notice of the potential for his being tried in his absence if he failed to appear for court. Also, you mentioned that these individuals signed a form when entering PTI which informed them that if they failed to complete PTI, their case would be returned to municipal court for prosecution. In the future, additional language could be considered to be included in

fos

REC. DENNIS BUILDING © POST GFFICEBOX 11549 « CoLU’ BLA,

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Page 2
January 5, 2004

these forms which would state specifically that if the individual, upon being notified at the last address available to the court, fails to appear, he would be tried in his absence and a bench warrant issued.

If there is anything further, please advise,

Sincerely,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General