State v. Grant ( 2012 )

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.
Gary Grant, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2007-067439
Appeal From Berkeley County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-406
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed July 11, 2012
VACATED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Counsel for Gary Grant filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there were no meritorious grounds
for appeal and requesting permission to withdraw from further representation. The
Court denied the request to withdraw and directed the parties to file additional
briefs addressing whether the circuit court erred in sentencing Grant for kidnapping
Dexter Perry when section 16-3-910 of the South Carolina Code (2003) prohibits
such a sentence if the defendant is also sentenced for the victim's murder.
After careful consideration of the record and briefs, Grant's sentence for
kidnapping Perry is vacated1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In
criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 16-3-910 (2003) (providing for imprisonment of a defendant convicted of
kidnapping "for a period not to exceed thirty years unless sentenced for murder as
provided in [s]ection 16-3-20"); State v. Vick, 384 S.C. 189, 202-03, 682 S.E.2d
275, 282 (Ct. App. 2009) (vacating a sentence for kidnapping pursuant to section
16-3-910 because the defendant received a concurrent sentence for murder and
reaching the issue, even though not challenged at trial, in the interest of judicial
economy).
VACATED.2
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
2
Because the Court ordered the parties to brief only the issue of whether the circuit
court erred in imposing a thirty-year sentence for kidnapping, we do not address
Grant's convictions or other sentences.