In The Interest Of M.B.H., A Minor Under The Age Of Seventeen, Appellant.

Decision Date19 April 2010
Docket NumberNo. 26806.,26806.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesIn the Interest of M.B.H., A Minor Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Donald Bruce Clark, of Charleston and Jessie J. Glenn, of N. Charleston, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

Chief Justice TOAL.

M.B.H. (Appellant), a minor, pled guilty to two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN). The family court ordered him committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) suspended upon probation, and required him to register as a sex offender. Appellant appealed the requirement that he register as a sex offender. We certified the appeal pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR and affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2007, four juvenile petitions were filed against Appellant, alleging lewd acts with a minor, assault with intent to commit sexual battery, and sexual battery. At issue were several instances of sexual contact Appellant, who was fourteen years old at the time of the incidents, had with both a ten year old boy and a twelve year old boy.1 Appellant admitted delinquency to two amended charges of ABHAN, and all other charges were dismissed.

At the hearing when Appellant admitted to the two charges of ABHAN, the solicitor recommended to the judge that Appellant undergo an inpatient evaluation and be placed on the private sex offender registry.2 The judge agreed that an inpatient evaluation was warranted, but retained jurisdiction to render a final disposition regarding the registry after Appellant completed the inpatient evaluation and the report was available to the parties and the court. The inpatient sex offender evaluation was ordered to determine his risk of re-offending and what treatment measures were necessary.

After the evaluation, Appellant appeared for the dispositional hearing. After hearing arguments from both the solicitor and Appellant's counsel, and statements from concerned individuals, Appellant was committed to DJJ, suspended on probation. As a condition of his probation, he was ordered to undergo inpatient sexual offender treatment at the Coastal Evaluation Center (the Center), as recommended in the Center's psychosocial evaluation report. Additionally, the judge ordered Appellant to be placed on the private sex offender registry.

At the hearing and in his order denying Appellant's motion to alter or amend the order of probation, the judge enumerated the issues identified in the Center's report that constitute good cause for requiring Appellant to register, including: multiple offenses; multiple younger, same-sex victims; a sense of victimization; denial of harm to others; borderline intellectual functioning; and the Center's recommendation that Appellant receive inpatient sexual offender treatment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial judge has broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits. Brooks v. State, 325 S.C. 269, 271, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997). A judge must be permitted to consider any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sentence for a particular defendant. State v. Hicks, 377 S.C. 322, 325, 659 S.E.2d 499, 500 (Ct.App.2008). A sentence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support. State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 315, 652 S.E.2d 409, 415 (Ct.App.2007).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Appellant argues that the judge improperly ordered him to register as a sex offender because the evidence failed to support a finding of good cause. We disagree.

As Appellant notes, good cause is not defined in the statute, nor has it been defined previously by this Court. Appellant urges that without a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • State v. Smart
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 7 Julio 2021
    ...423, 831 S.E.2d 158, 160 (Ct. App. 2019). This court will not overturn a sentence absent an abuse of discretion. In re M.B.H. , 387 S.C. 323, 326, 692 S.E.2d 541, 542 (2010). A trial court commits an abuse of discretion when it commits an error of law, makes a factual finding that lacks evi......
  • State v. Jones, Appellate Case No. 2016-000273
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 13 Junio 2018
    ...unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, . . . the court has no right to impose another meaning"); In re M.B.H., 387 S.C. 323, 326, 692 S.E.2d 541, 542 (2010) ("A trial judge has broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits." (emphasis added)); id. ("A sentence will ......
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 13 Junio 2018
    ...387 S.C. 323, 326, 692 S.E.2d 541, 542 (2010) ("A trial judge has broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits." (emphasis added)); id. sentence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evident......
  • State v. Fuller
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 4 Enero 2019
    ...of discretion when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support.In re M.B.H., 387 S.C. 323, 326, 692 S.E.2d 541, 542 (2010) (citations omitted).Applying this standard of review, we hold the trial court acted within its discretion in declining to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT