Harris v. State, 25437.
Decision Date | 08 April 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 25437.,25437. |
Citation | 562 S.E.2d 311,349 S.C. 46 |
Parties | O'Bryant HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Allen Bullard, all of Columbia, for respondent.
We granted a writ of certiorari in this post-conviction relief (PCR) case to consider petitioner's request for reclassification to non-violent offender status. We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
Petitioner was indicted by the State Grand Jury for conspiracy to traffic 400 grams or more of cocaine under S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(2)(e) (Supp.2000). He admitted he participated in a Miami-based drug trafficking ring and was involved in transporting many kilos of cocaine between 1990 and 1996. In exchange for his cooperation with law enforcement, he was offered a plea agreement which he accepted. Under the agreement, petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic ten to twenty-eight grams of cocaine, first offense, in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2)(a). He was sentenced to ten years and classified as a violent offender. In his PCR action, petitioner contested his classification as a violent offender. The application for relief was dismissed.
Is a conviction for conspiracy to traffic under § 44-53-370(e) properly classified as a violent offense?
Under S.C.Code Ann. § 16-1-60 (Supp.2000), certain offenses are defined as "violent crimes."1 This section specifically includes "drug trafficking as defined in § 44-53-370(e)" as a violent crime.
Section 44-53-370(e)(2), under which petitioner pled guilty, provides:
(Emphasis added). As defined in this section, there is no distinction between conspiracy to traffic and the substantive offense of trafficking. Further, § 44-53-370(e) provides that a person convicted of conspiracy under this section must be sentenced with a full sentence and not one-half of the sentence as otherwise provided in S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-420 (Supp. 2000) for conspiracy drug charges.2 The legislature clearly intended that conspiracy to traffic be treated as trafficking under § 44-53-370(e). In conclusion, a conviction under § 44-53-370(e), whether for trafficking or conspiracy to traffic, is properly classified as a violent crime under § 16-1-60. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to reclassification.
DISMISSED.
1. This classification affects a defendant's parole status. See, e.g., S.C.Code Ann. §§ 24-21-610 (Supp.2000) ( ) and 645 (parole review every two years). Petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Harris, 25535.
...the full sentence for the offense, rather than the one-half sentence provided in section 44-53-420. Recently, in Harris v. State, 349 S.C. 46, 48, 562 S.E.2d 311, 312 (2002), this Court noted that "as defined in [section 44-53-370(e)(2)], there is no distinction between conspiracy to traffi......
-
Gordon v. State
... ... as one of a number of ways the substantive offense may be ... committed. See i.e. Harris v. State, 349 S.C. 46, ... 562 S.E.2d 311 (2002) (holding that under Section 44-53-370 ... (e) the legislature clearly intended that ... ...
-
Harden v. State
...felony which is known as "trafficking in ice, crank, or crack cocaine".... 3. Petitioner's reliance on our holding in Harris v. State, 349 S.C. 46, 562 S.E.2d 311 (2002) is misplaced. The issue in Harris was whether conspiracy to traffic was properly classified as a violent offense. South C......