State v. Edwards, 23271
Decision Date | 08 October 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 23271,23271 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Neville McLean EDWARDS, Appellant. |
Dana R. Krajack, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense. He contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a second offender under S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-2940 (Supp.1989). We disagree and affirm.
Appellant committed the current offense on February 3, 1989, and was convicted on August 10, 1989. His prior DUI offense occurred in 1982, and he was convicted for that offense in February 1983. The 1988 amendment to § 56-5-2940, effective January 1, 1989, extended from 5 to 10 years the time period in which prior DUI convictions may be considered in determining the penalty for a subsequent DUI conviction.
Appellant argues that the legislature did not intend for the 1988 amendment to apply "retroactively" to allow consideration of his 1983 conviction. However, the clear and unambiguous language of the amendment indicates that the new 10 year period is to be used in determining the degree of any DUI committed on or after January 1, 1989. Therefore, appellant's argument is without merit. See State v. Salmon, 279 S.C. 344, 306 S.E.2d 620 (1983) ( ).
Appellant also argues that the 1988 amendment to § 56-5-2940 violates the ex post facto clause of the United States and South Carolina Constitutions. This argument is also without merit. See State v. Dabney, 391 S.E.2d 563 (S.C.1990).
Finally, appellant contends that it violates due process to apply the 1988 amendment to his case. He argues that at the time of his 1983 conviction, he had no notice that that conviction could be considered in determining punishment for a subsequent offense for 10 years beyond that conviction.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Moore v. Stirling
-
Moore v. Stirling
...671 S.E.2d at 603 n.4. We have cautioned that not every constitutional error will justify issuance of the writ. Butler, 302 S.C. at 468, 397 S.E.2d at 88. Rather, two components are needed to meet the standard articulated in Butler and other cases. The petitioner must prove (1) the existenc......
-
State v. Marshall
...he is being penalized under the newly amended statutory scheme for persisting in committing the offense of DUI."); State v. Edwards, 302 S.C. 492, 397 S.E.2d 88, 89 (1990) (rejecting defendant's argument "that the legislature did not intend for the 1988 amendment to apply `retroactively' to......
- McWee v. State