State v. Field ( 2018 )

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, Appellant,
v.
Arthur M. Field, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-000210
Appeal From State Grand Jury
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-455
Submitted October 1, 2017 – Filed December 6, 2017
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled April 4, 2018
_____________
AFFIRMED
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Samuel Creighton Waters, and
Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of
Columbia, for Appellant.
James Todd Rutherford, of The Rutherford Law Firm,
LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The State appeals the denial of its motion to reconsider Arthur
M. Field's sentence, arguing Field improperly received credit for pretrial time
during which he was neither incarcerated nor on home confinement. We affirm.
In its order denying the State's motion to reconsider Field's sentence, the circuit
court stated it agreed with the State's contentions that Field should have received
credit for only one hundred forty-six days rather than the fifteen months that the
South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) determined should be credited
against his active sentence. The circuit court further observed the State "correctly
believ[ed] that SCDC's calculation and quick turnaround was inconsistent with this
[c]ourt's intent as to active sentence." The circuit court "elected to reduce the . . .
sentence [imposed on Field's codefendant] by a companion order to achieve more
equality of sentence." We hold the circuit court, in adjusting the sentence it
imposed on Field's codefendant so that the active sentences for both defendants
were similar, acted within its discretion. See State v. Smith, 276 S.C. 494, 498, 280
S.E.2d 200, 202 (1981) ("We hold the authority to change a sentence rests solely
and exclusively in the hands of the sentencing judge within the exercise of his
discretion."); State v. Hicks, 377 S.C. 322, 325, 659 S.E.2d 499, 500 (Ct. App.
2008) ("A judge or other sentencing authority is to be accorded very wide
discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, and must be permitted to
consider any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sentence
for the particular defendant, given the crime committed.").
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.