SC man was 17 when convicted of murder in 1973. 50 years later, he still wants parole

Fifty years ago, 17-year-old Stewart Russell Buchanan stabbed his Fort Mill neighbor to death. After five decades in prison, court documents show Buchanan wants the court system to let him out. Or at least, consider his young age at the time of the crime.

Aileen Boone, 43, was stabbed 22 times and found dead outside her house on May 18, 1973, according to police and court records. Buchanan, whom court records say took the hallucinogenic LSD and drank alcohol before the killing, was arrested the same day.

He’s been in prison ever since.

In September 1973, Buchanan pleaded guilty to murder, which, under the law at the time, had a mandatory sentence of 10 years to life.

Buchanan has been denied parole at least 18 times. At age 67, though, he still is seeking it.

His lawyers say he deserves parole because of his age at the time of the crime, and his rehabilitation.

Buchanan was a juvenile at the time of the crime and guilty plea. In court documents, Buchanan’s lawyers say he deserves a parole hearing based on his juvenile status from five decades ago.

Lawyers for South Carolina’s parole board disagree, saying the parole board’s decisions to deny parole are legal.

So far, the S.C. Administrative Law Court and the S.C. Court of Appeals have upheld the board’s decision to deny Buchanan’s release.

However, justices from the court of appeals wrote they had concerns about the parole process for inmates -- such as Buchanan -- who were juveniles when convicted. The appeals court suggested South Carolina lawmakers may have to review parole rules for juveniles.

The S.C. Supreme Court appears to be poised to hear the case. Buchanan’s lawyers were given an extension of time last week to ask the high court to hear the case, according to a public record order from the Supreme Court.

Stewart Russell Buchanan’s case

Buchanan pleaded guilty to murder in York County criminal court in September 1973 and was sentenced to 10 years to life in prison, court records state. The sentencing sheet for the teen at the time, 50 years old and still in the court file, says the sentence was rendered, “with recommendation for mercy.”

The legal fight that continues five decades later and is likely headed for the S.C. Supreme Court, is about whether the state parole board should give Buchanan a hearing that focuses on his juvenile status at the time of Boone’s murder.

In court papers, Buchanan’s lawyers say he has been rehabilitated through programs -- like those aimed at life after incarceration and drug and alcohol treatment -- and deserves to be paroled.

Buchanan appealed the parole board’s denials first to the administrative law court, then to the court of appeals.

His lawyers argue in court documents that because Buchanan was 17, a juvenile, at the time of the crime, the parole board should consider how old he was then. Because of Buchanan’s age in 1973, and US court decisions about juvenile sentencing that have happened since then, Buchanan’s lawyers claim he deserves a parole hearing tailored to his age at the time he committed the crime.

The state of South Carolina has a different take, though. Lawyers for the S.C. Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services stated in court documents Buchanan has had legitimate parole hearings and parole has been denied. Also, the courts have no jurisdiction to tell the parole board who to set free, state lawyers argue.

The S.C. Court of Appeals in October ruled in favor of the parole board. But the court said it was “constrained” by law. The appeals court wrote in its approval that it has concerns about the process that might take changing the law to enact any reform.

“Under the current system, it appears no passage of time served or showing of rehabilitation... can change his fate before this Board,” the appeals court stated. “The prospect of parole, including meaningful parole hearings, incentivizes good conduct while imprisoned and encourages participation in rehabilitative programs, which reduces recidivism rates.”

The killing of Aileen Boone

Buchanan was a troubled teen in Fort Mill in the early 1970s, according to court records.

Around the time of Boone’s murder, Buchanan began using methamphetamine and LSD, and had stopped attending auto mechanics classes at York Technical College, records show.

The night Boone was stabbed, Buchanan “took several hits of LSD and drank excessively,” court documents state.

According to appeals court records,:

“On May 18, 1973, Buchanan broke into the victim’s home in the early morning hours. The victim, Buchanan’s neighbor, awoke and fled the house. Buchanan stabbed her to death in the front yard.”

Buchanan was 17 in September 1973, when he pleaded guilty to murder. Under the law at the time, that plea had a mandatory sentence of 10 years to life.

Prison rehabilitation

According to court documents, Buchanan’s lawyers say that in the five decades since Boone’s murder, Buchanan has been rehabilitated and completed several programs, including business and vocational courses.

Documents show Buchanan has been part of prison programs aimed at life after incarceration, completed drug and alcohol treatment, and done what has been available to him for rehabilitation and to show that he is a candidate for parole.

A forensic psychologist examined Buchanan before a 2018 parole hearing and concluded Buchanan, “did not represent a significant risk for future violent acts,” according to the appeals court opinion.

Buchanan is represented by lawyers from Justice 360 in Columbia, records show.

Lawyers for Buchanan declined to discuss specifics of the case for this story.

Parole denied each time

In at least 15 of Buchanan’s parole denials, the board stated parole was denied for three main reasons: the nature and seriousness of the crime, violence in the crime, and use of a deadly weapon.

In a 2018 parole hearing, three pastors, Buchanan’s lawyer and a person affiliated with a post-prison release program appeared on his behalf, documents show.

The parole board made a verbal decision to deny parole less than a minute after the hearing, Buchanan’s lawyers stated in documents.

The S.C Parole Board is made up of seven members. There is a representative from each of the state’s seven congressional districts on the board.

Court documents from Buchanan’s lawyers claim the process is inefficient because “it does not require the Board to consider his youth and rehabilitation. Many jurisdictions have judicially or legislatively required parole boards to specifically consider the “hallmark features of youth” in “considering parole of juvenile offenders.”.

South Carolina’s position

Lawyers for the S.C. Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon state in court documents that the parole board’s decisions to deny Buchanan parole are legal.

The parole board is the only body under state law that can grant parole.

There were 71 signatures of people opposed to Buchanan receiving parole at a 2018 parole hearing, according to the appeals court decision. The decision does not name those people.

Parole is a privilege, not a right, the state argues in court documents. Buchanan is “clearly frustrated with the board’s repeated refusal to grant him parole,” lawyers for South Carolina stated in documents.

In court documents, lawyers for the state say the parole board considers a variety of factors as required by law.

State lawyers wrote:

“The board must carefully consider the record of the prisoner before, during, and after imprisonment, and no such prisoner may be paroled until it appears to the satisfaction of the board: That the prisoner has shown a disposition to reform; that in the future he will probably obey the law and lead a correct life; that by his conduct he has merited a lessening of the rigors of his imprisonment; that the interest of society will not be impaired thereby; and that suitable employment has been secured for him.”

Buchanan remains eligible for parole, state lawyers argue. But only the parole board can grant that, not any court despite Buchanan asking the courts to review the decision, state lawyers argue.

“He therefore is asking for what this court cannot give him; the guarantee or right to parole, or the usurping of the Board’s authority by this court granting him parole,” state lawyers wrote.

A spokesperson for the S.C. Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services said in an email to The Herald the agency cannot comment on the case until the opinion is final.

Appeals court decision

The S.C. Court of Appeals, in a decision last month, affirmed the parole board decision. That decision backed a S.C. Administrative Law Court (ALC) decision that said the parole board has the right to deny parole.

“We agree with the ALC that neither the United States Supreme Court nor our supreme court requires specific parole criteria to be considered in determining whether to grant parole, and the Board’s denial of parole did not constitute cruel and/or unusual punishment under either Constitution,” the appeals court wrote.

But the appeals court wrote that it had concerns about the process and made its ruling because it was “constrained to affirm.”

“We reluctantly affirm the ALC’s finding that the Board followed the proper procedure when it denied Buchanan parole...” the appeals court stated. “Although the Board has complied with the minimal requirements necessary for this to satisfy the standard our supreme court articulated in Cooper, we are sympathetic to Buchanan’s argument that it appears inmates who offended while juveniles are not given meaningful review regarding parole. Our role is one that is limited to operating within the framework set by statutory law and by our supreme court’s precedents. It may well be good policy for the Legislature to review and/or revise the parole system to assure the factors of youth are a part of considering parole in these cases rather than permitting the seemingly perfunctory review now standardly given, but that is the Legislature’s decision, not ours.”

The appeals court also stated that it has concerns about juveniles who are imprisoned for violent crimes not having a legitimate chance to be paroled due to the nature of their crimes.

“We are concerned regarding the perfunctory manner in which Buchanan’s request for parole was denied,” the appeals court wrote. “Although Buchanan and other juveniles similarly situated are technically eligible for parole, the continuing denial of parole based on the same factors, all unchangeable and related to their offenses, gives no guidance to these inmates about what can be done to improve their chances of parole and is very nearly equivalent to being ineligible for parole.”

The appeals court wrote: “There appears to be no dispute—none—that he has been an exemplary inmate and demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation, and a low risk for recidivism.”

South Carolina law professor following Buchanan’s case

The appeals court ruling likely means the S.C. Supreme Court will accept to hear the case, said Madalyn Wasilczuk, a law professor at the University of South Carolina with experience concerning the prosecution and detention of children. Wasilczuk runs the law school juvenile justice clinic.

She said she attended the appeals court oral arguments earlier this year and has followed Buchanan’s case and another that concerns juvenile sentences and parole.

Wasilczuk said the appeals court decision stating it was constrained to affirm the lower court ruling shows the appeals court believed the law was followed, but the appeals court had concerns about the parole process, especially for juveniles.

She said prisoners such as Buchanan have no other way to demonstrate rehabilitation if the parole board mainly uses the criteria inherent in the crime of murder: The crime is serious, a weapon was used, and there was violence.

The concern is that if the parole board uses just the violent crime with a weapon measure to deny parole, he has almost no chance at parole, she said.

“The denial is for reasons he can never change,” she said.

In the Buchanan case, he has demonstrated factors that should weigh in his favor for parole, Wasilczuk said. Those factors include rehabilitation, and his age at the time of the offense.

What happens now?

No date has been set for the S.C. Supreme Court to accept and hear the case. Buchanan’s lawyers have until Nov. 27 to file a petition asking the state’s highest court to hear the case, the Supreme Court order for extension shows.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it is unclear when it would happen. If it is heard, decisions from the court can take months.

Buchanan, 67, remains at Perry prison in Greenville County, the S.C. Department of Corrections website shows.

His next parole hearing is scheduled for 2025, according to spokesperson Anita Dantzler with the S.C. Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services.