State v. Hall, 16832

• Decision Date: 10 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. 16832,16832
• Citation: 80 S.E.2d 239,224 S.C. 546
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. HALL et al.

Page 239

80 S.E.2d 239

224 S.C. 546

STATE v. HALL et al.

No. 16832.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 10, 1954.

J. A. Hutto, Columbia, for appellants.

T. P. Taylor, Sol., Columbia, for respondent.

BAKER, Chief Justice.

There is but one issue in this case, the second issue having been abandoned upon oral argument. This issue, as stated by appellants, is: 'Was the sentence of the Trial Judge of two years imprisonment excessive, unusual, unreasonable and oppressive and in violation of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina and of the United States?'

The appellants-defendants were indicted and tried in the Court of General Sessions for Richland County at the June, 1953 term, on several counts involving spiritous liquor, and were convicted on the sixth count which charged that on January 27, 1953, in the County of Richland in the State of South Carolina, the appellants did wilfully and unlawfully make and manufacture alcoholic liquors without having first obtained a license so to do; and being convicted, they were sentenced by the Presiding Judge to be confined at hard labor in the State Penitentiary for a period of two years. Upon their trial the appellants offered no testimony in their defense. The agreed statement contained in the record furnishes the information that this was a first offense of either of the appellants.

Section 17-553 of the Code of Laws of 1952, provides that where punishment for a crime is not prescribed by statute, the Court shall pass such sentence as is conformable to the usage and practice in this State, according to the nature of the offense and not repugnant to the Constitution.

While it appears to us, neither of the appellants having any criminal record, that the sentence imposed is somewhat harsh, yet it is the established rule in this State that this Court has no jurisdiction on appeal to correct a sentence alleged to be excessive when it is within the limits prescribed by law and in the discretion of the Trial Judge, and is not the result of partiality, prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive. State v. Goodall, 221 S.C. 175, 69 S.E.2d 915.

The length of the sentence to be imposed for the offense for which the appellants were convicted is admittedly within the discretion of the Trial Judge, and the record in this case does not disclose partiality, prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive (nor is such charged) on the part of the sentencing Judge. We quote from the case of State v. Phillips, 215 S.C. 314, 320, 54 S.E.2d 901, 904:

'Moreover, the imposition of sentence is the responsibility of the trial judge rather than ours. He is in far better position to decide upon a proper punishment, State v. Brandon, 210 S.C. 495, 43 S.E.2d 449; State v. Scates, 212 S.C. 150, 46 S.E.2d 693; and his conclusion will be affirmed except in very rare instances, as pointed out in State v. Kimbrough, supra, [212 S.C. 348, 46 S.E.2d 273]. We quote from the opinion in that case, 212 S.C. at page 357, 46 S.E.2d at page 277: 'It is perhaps unnecessary to add that only under rare and unusual circumstances will this...