Mims v. State, 21068
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | NESS; LEWIS; RHODES; RHODES |
| Citation | 273 S.C. 740,259 S.E.2d 602 |
| Parties | Terry Lee MIMS, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Appellant. Johnny Melvin MOORE, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Appellant. Rudolph POWERS, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 21068,21068 |
| Decision Date | 24 October 1979 |
Page 602
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Appellant.
Johnny Melvin MOORE, Respondent,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Appellant.
Rudolph POWERS, Respondent,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Appellant.
[273 S.C. 741] Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen., Emmet H. Clair and Staff Atty., Betty J. Willoughby, Columbia, for appellant.
Thomas J. Thompson, Laurens, for respondents Mims and Powers.
Richard J. Magner, Laurens, for respondent Moore.
NESS, Justice:
This is an appeal by the State from an order of the circuit court directing that parole eligibility for the respondents, Terry Lee Mims, Johnny Melvin Moore, and Rudolph Powers, be determined solely upon the six year period of confinement to which each was sentenced, without considering the additional five year "consecutive, suspended" sentence imposed upon each respondent. We reverse.
In March of 1976, respondents Mims, Moore, and Powers entered guilty pleas to numerous indictments. Each was sentenced on one of the indictments to a term of six years, on a second indictment to five years "consecutive, suspended" with probation for a period of five years to be effective on release from service of the six year sentence, and on all other indictments to confinement for five years concurrent.
The Board informally advised the sentencing judge that it interpreted the sentences imposed for purposes of parole eligibility as an aggregate sentence of eleven years, thereby requiring the service of one third of eleven years in order to qualify for parole eligibility. In June of 1978, the trial judge, pursuant to post-conviction relief applications filed by respondents, ruled that:
"there is absolutely no intimation within the statutes that calls for a completely suspended sentence to be amalgamated [273 S.C. 742] with an 'active' sentence in the fashion done by Respondents (the Board). Each sentence stands on its own the intent of the court is clearly stated in and by each sentence and each is consistent with the laws of the state."
The State asserts the trial court erred in ordering the Board to disregard the consecutive sentences of respondents in computing their eligibility for parole. We agree.
While use of "consecutive" and "suspended" in connection with the same sentence is inconsistent, this does not alter the unity of the sentence imposed. "It is not unusual or
Page 603
unreasonable to consider . . . that two or more consecutive sentences, imposed at the same time by the same, Judge, would ordinarily be considered as a single 'sentence.' " Polk v. Manning, 224 S.C. 467, 472-73, 79 S.E.2d 875, 877 (1954).In Picklesimer v. State, 254 S.C. 596, 176 S.E.2d 536 (1970) the Court held that suspended portions of an imposed sentence should be included for purposes of computing parole eligibility. In reaching its conclusion, the Court construed the following portions of current Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Major v. Dept. of Probation, 26672.
...treated as one general sentence by aggregating the periods imposed in each sentence." Id. at 219, 399 S.E.2d at 763 (citing Mims v. State, 273 S.C. 740, 259 S.E.2d 602 (1979)). More importantly, for purposes of this case, the Atkins Court concluded that "[m]ultiple life sentences cannot 682......
-
Brian Major # 176677 v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Opinion No. 26672 (S.C. 6/15/2009), Opinion No. 26672
...treated as one general sentence by aggregating the periods imposed in each sentence." Id. at 219, 399 S.E.2d at 763 (citing Mims v. State, 273 S.C. 740, 259 S.E. 2d 602 (1979)). More importantly, for purposes of this case, the Atkins Court concluded that "[m]ultiple life sentences cannot be......
-
State v. Atkins, 23281
...this was an erroneous statement of the law. We disagree. Although the precise issue has not been before this Court, in Mims v. State, 273 S.C. 740, 259 S.E.2d 602 (1979), we held that, for purposes of parole eligibility, consecutive sentences should be treated as one general sentence by agg......
-
Davis v. South Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, 2740
...cases State v. Germany, 216 S.C. 182, 57 S.E.2d 165 (1949); Picklesimer v. State, 254 S.C. 596, 176 S.E.2d 536 (1970); and Mims v. State, 273 S.C. 740, 259 S.E.2d 602 (1979), the Attorney General's Office advised Department that "there appears to be a basis in State case law for construing ......