Sellers v. SCDC ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • 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
    James A. Sellers, Appellant,
    v.
    South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2015-001519
    Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
    Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-281
    Submitted March 1, 2016 – Filed June 8, 2016
    AFFIRMED
    James A. Sellers, pro se.
    Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
    Department of Corrections, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: James Sellers appeals the order of the administrative law court
    (ALC) affirming the decision of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the
    Department) denying him eligibility for sentence-reduction credits for his
    conviction for accessory before the fact to murder because the trial court did not
    sentence him to the mandatory minimum of thirty years' imprisonment. We
    affirm.1
    A jury convicted Sellers in August 1997 of accessory before the fact to murder and
    trafficking in crank. The trial court sentenced Sellers concurrently to twenty-five
    years' imprisonment on each conviction. A person convicted of accessory before
    the fact "must be punished in the manner prescribed for the punishment of the
    principal felon." 
    S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-40
     (2015); see also 
    S.C. Code Ann. § 16
    -
    3-20(A) (2015) (stating a person convicted of murder must be punished by "a
    mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years"). Although Sellers
    was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment and, thus, not to "a mandatory
    minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years," the legislature clearly intended
    one who was sentenced pursuant to the murder statute to be barred from eligibility
    for sentence-reduction credits. 
    Id.
     ("No person sentenced to a mandatory minimum
    term of imprisonment for thirty years . . . pursuant to [section 16-3-20(A)] is
    eligible for parole or any early release program . . . or any other credits that would
    reduce the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years . . . required
    by this section."); see also Univ. of S. Cal. v. Moran, 
    365 S.C. 270
    , 275, 
    617 S.E.2d 135
    , 138 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to
    determine the intent of the legislature.").
    The statute's plain language indicates ineligibility for parole or sentence-reduction
    credits requires a person to be sentenced to "a mandatory minimum term of
    imprisonment for thirty years . . . ." § 16-3-20(A) (emphasis added); Moran, 365
    S.C. at 276, 617 S.E.2d at 137 (stating "[t]he legislature's intent should be
    ascertained primarily from the plain language of the statute"). Nonetheless,
    permitting Sellers to manipulate the trial court's imposition of a sentence below the
    mandatory minimum term and receive sentence-reduction credits "would lead to a
    result so plainly absurd that it could not have been intended by the legislature or
    would defeat the plain legislative intention." Id. at 278, 617 S.E.2d at 139; id.
    ("The real purpose and intent of the lawmakers will prevail over the literal import
    of the words."). Accordingly, we find the legislature intended to bar persons
    sentenced under section 16-3-20(A) from eligibility for sentence-reduction credits,
    and the ALC did not err in affirming the Department's denial of credits.
    AFFIRMED.
    HUFF, A.C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, J.J., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016-UP-281

Filed Date: 6/8/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024