State v. Bell

• Decision Date: 12 August 1949
• Docket Number: 16251.
• Parties: STATE v. BELL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

54 S.E.2d 900

215 S.C. 311

STATE v. BELL.

No. 16251.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

August 12, 1949

John M. Schofield, Walhalla, for appellant.

Solicitor Rufus Fant, Anderson, for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The appellant, Ed Bell, was indicted on two counts charging him with: (1) Possession for unlawful purpose and use of alcoholic liquors; and (2) The unlawful manufacture of alcoholic liquors. Act No. 211 (1945), Sec. 14, 44 Stat. at Large, pp. 337, 352.

When the case was called for trial, appellant entered a general plea of guilty. The trial judge then sentenced him to serve eighteen months on the public works of Oconee County or a like period in the State Penitentiary.

Immediately before imposing the sentence, the trial judge made inquiry with reference to appellant's past record, which he discussed with appellant and his attorney at length. Inquiry was also made of the officers connected with the case.

Appellant stated to the court that he had been engaged in an unlawful liquor business about twenty years, and that he could not remember how many times he had been apprehended and sentenced for violating the liquor laws. He admitted that he had been convicted in November, 1947 for the unlawful manufacture of alcoholic liquors, and stated that he had served a term in the Federal Penitentiary for violating the liquor laws. It developed that the appellant is sixty one years old, and has a family of small children dependent upon him. Before passing sentence, the appellant and his attorney were given full opportunity to be heard by the trial judge.

The first question to be considered is appellant's contention that the sentence imposed is so unduly severe, and manifestly so excessive as to violate that portion of Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution , which forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.

Sub-section (i)(2) of Section 14 of Act No. 211 of the Acts of the General Assembly, 1945, 44 Stat. at Large, page 353 provides, among other things, that the punishment for unlawful manufacture of alcoholic liquors and for having alcoholic liquors in possession for unlawful use, shall be '(A) fine or imprisonment in the discretion of the Court of General Sessions.'

This court has repeatedly held that it has no jurisdiction on appeal to correct a sentence alleged to be excessive when it is within the limits prescribed by law for the discretion of the trial judge, and is not the result of partiality prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive. State v Scates, 212 S.C. 150, 46 S.E.2d 693; State v Kimbrough, 212 S.C. 348, 46 S.E.2d...