UP-433 - State v. Adams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Antwan Adams, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-000836 Appeal From Richland County DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-433 Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed November 22, 2017 APPEAL DISMISSED Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant. Thomas Wells Nicholson, of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Because Appellant has completed his sentence, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 380 S.C. 528, 535, 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court will not pass judgment on moot and academic questions; it will not adjudicate a matter when no actual controversy capable of specific relief exists. A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. Mootness also arises when some event occurs making it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effectual relief." (citations omitted)); id. ("The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked."). APPEAL DISMISSED.1 LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HILL, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
