Nichols v. Patterson
Decision Date | 24 May 1943 |
Docket Number | 15543. |
Citation | 25 S.E.2d 745,202 S.C. 533 |
Parties | NICHOLS v. PATTERSON. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Edwin G. Patterson, of Anderson, for appellant.
Rufus Fant, Jr., of Anderson, for respondent.
Appellant, a second-offender, was convicted of crime and sentenced in the Court of General Sessions for Anderson County during the September 1941 term, as follows:
Having a record of "good behavior" and claiming a reduction therefor of one-fifth of his sentence, considering the latter to be twenty months, appellant sought his release by habeas corpus in January 1943. But the Circuit Court held that the recent authority of Thompson v. Patterson, 201 S.C. 221, 22 S.E.2d 590, is applicable and remitted appellant to the County Supervisor, respondent here, in whose custody he was serving his sentence upon the chain gang.
Appellant took three exceptions to this ruling, but they make but one question, whether the reduction of sentence for good behavior provided by Section 1578 of the Code of 1942 should be calculated upon the whole sentence of two years or upon the unsuspended portion thereof, twenty months. In the case cited above and relied upon by the trial court is the precise answer to the stated question, and its reasoning need not be repeated. Appellant advances no ground for distinguishing this case from it.
The exceptions are overruled.
Affirmed.
BONHAM, C. J., did not participate.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Germany
... ... or may impose a fine and also place the defendant in ... probation.' In construing this Act, it was held in ... Moore v. Patterson, 203 S.C. 90, 26 S.E.2d 319, 147 ... A.L.R. 653, that in imposing a sentence of imprisonment on ... the chain gang or in the State Penitentiary, ... not six months, the period required to be served, but was for ... one year. This decision was followed in Nichols v ... Patterson, Acting Supervisor, 202 S.C. 533, 25 S.E.2d ... 745. It is true that the effect of these decisions was ... changed under Act No ... ...