State v. Archie
| Citation | 322 S.C. 135,470 S.E.2d 380 |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 2472,2472 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Jerome ARCHIE, Appellant. . Heard |
Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Chief Legal Counsel Carl N. Lundberg, of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon, all of Columbia, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a probation revocation hearing in which Jerome Archie had his suspended sentence revoked in full. Archie assigns error to the trial judge for basing the revocation on citations issued by the Probation Department (the Department) that alleged violations of conditions imposed subsequent to his original sentence. Archie was originally sentenced on May 21, 1990 and again on February 11, 1991. Each time, Archie was sentenced to five years in prison suspended on five years probation.
In October, 1992, Archie allegedly violated probation by failing to report, which led to an administrative hearing. At the hearing, the Department's administrative hearing officer imposed these additional conditions on Archie's probation: (1) intensive supervision before and after in-patient treatment; (2) home detention until admitted for substance abuse treatment--preferably at the Salvation Army; (3) perform 10 days public service; (4) secure employment within 30 days after treatment; (5) defer supervision fee payments until in-patient treatment completed, payment plan for arrearage to be determined by agent; and (6) complete aftercare substance abuse treatment as recommended.
On December 16, 1994, the circuit court judge presiding over a probation revocation hearing questioned the probation agent regarding Archie's failure to comply with home detention, and questioned Archie on his continued use of crack cocaine, a violation of his original conditions of probation. The circuit court judge revoked probation in full.
Archie argues the added conditions of probation, including the home detention, amounted to an unconstitutional enhancement of his original sentence. We agree. The Department has no authority to enhance a probationer's sentence. Revocation of probation is the means of enforcement of the conditions of the probation. This court will not disturb the circuit court's decision to revoke probation unless the decision was influenced by an error of law, was without evidentiary support, or constituted an abuse of discretion. State v. White, 218 S.C. 130, 61 S.E.2d 754 (1950). However, we conclude the revocation, based at least in part on Archie's failure to comply with conditions imposed by the Department, was error.
The Department argues pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-430 (Supp.1995), it has the authority to add conditions to Archie's sentence. Section 24-21-430 provides "[t]he court shall determine and may impose ... and may at anytime modify the conditions of probation...." The Department argues a broad reading of this section extends the authority conferred on the court to the department. In support of this argument, the department maintains that S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-280 (Supp.1995) authorizes them to "use practicable and suitable methods to aid and encourage persons on probation or parole to bring about improvement in their conduct and condition" and provides that a probation agent is an "official representative of the court" for purposes of accomplishing this objective.
This argument ignores the doctrine of separation of powers. The South Carolina Constitution provides:
In the government of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...to "obtain treatment" resulted in confusion among the probationer and probation and mental health officials); State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135, 470 S.E.2d 380 (Ct.App.1996) (holding that only a court, and not a state probation agency, may exercise the judicial function of imposing or modifying......
-
State v. Price
...of probation, to modify conditions of probation, and to revoke probation are core functions of the judiciary. See State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that determination of conditions of probation is a judicial function which cannot be delegated to an executive agency......
-
State v. Hamilton
...basis indicates the circuit judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. White at 135-6, 61 S.E.2d at 756; State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135, 137-8, 470 S.E.2d 380, 381 (Ct.App.1996). I. Hamilton first argues that the circuit judge erred in revoking his probationary sentence because there was......
- Roddy v. State, 25075.
-
Graduated Sanctions: Stepping into Accountable Systems and Offenders
...and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19, 172-189. State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135, 470 S.E. 2d 380 (1996).Taxman, F. S. (1994). Correctional options and implementation issues: Results from a survey correctional professionals. Perspe......