State v. Hazel
| Decision Date | 01 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24185,24185 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Morris V. HAZEL, Appellant. . Heard |
Chief Atty. Daniel T. Stacey and Asst. Appellate Defender Lisa Gregory, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen., T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Donald J. Zelenka, and Deputy Atty. Gen., Salley Elliott, Columbia, and Sol. Barbara R. Morgan, Aiken, for respondent.
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in failing to sentence him under the Youthful Offender Act (YOA), S.C.Code Ann. § 24-19-10 et seq. (1989). We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for resentencing.
Appellant was arrested following a drug bust at a car wash. Appellant and two males were outside the building when the police pulled into the parking lot. Appellant walked quickly to the side of the building and was seen throwing something into a grassy area. A white vial was recovered and the contents tested positive as crack cocaine.
Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Appellant, who was nineteen at the time of trial, requested that he be sentenced under the YOA. The trial judge refused and sentenced appellant to fifteen years and imposed a $25,000 fine.
Did the trial judge err in failing to sentence appellant under the YOA?
In response to appellant's request for sentencing under the YOA, the trial judge stated:
Well, it's one thing, if he'd pled guilty, I'd have considered that, but taking into consideration the age and where he was and the time it was, the sentence of the court is you be confined to the State Board of Corrections for a period of fifteen years and pay a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars.
The determination that a defendant will not benefit from sentencing under the YOA is within the trial judge's discretion. Brown v. State, 265 S.C. 516, 220 S.E.2d 125 (1975). However, we find the trial judge relied heavily on appellant's exercise of his right to a jury trial as weighing against sentencing under the YOA.
"[C]ourts have long adhered to the principle forbidding a trial court from improperly considering the defendant's exercise of his constitutional right to a jury trial as an influential factor in determining the appropriate sentence." State v. Pavone, 104 N.C.App. 442, 410 S.E.2d 1 (1991). Accord Pasley v. State, 559 So.2d 1167 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990) (); Fermo v. State, 370 So.2d 930 (Miss.1979) (). We hold the trial judge abused his discretion by considering the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brouwer
...as a matter of law—[ ] that's fine"). Accordingly, we reverse Brouwer's sentence and remand for resentencing. See State v. Hazel, 317 S.C. 368, 370, 453 S.E.2d 879, 880 (1995) (remanding case for resentencing hearing where the trial court "relied heavily on [Hazel's] exercise of his right t......
-
State v. Kamana'o
...of his constitutional right to a jury trial as an influential factor in determining the appropriate sentence.' " State v. Hazel, 317 S.C. 368, 453 S.E.2d 879, 880 (1995) (citations and bracket omitted); see also Jennings, 664 A.2d at 908 ("[A] trial court may not punish a defendant for invo......
-
State v. Follin, 3559.
...the problem of trial judges improperly considering the defendant's failure to plead guilty in imposing sentence. In State v. Hazel, 317 S.C. 368, 453 S.E.2d 879 (1995), the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. During the sentencing proceeding, the d......
-
State v. Kamana`o, No. 25271 (Haw. 12/3/2003), 25271
...exercise of his constitutional right to a jury trial as an influential factor in determining the appropriate sentence.'" State v. Hazel, 453 S.E.2d 879, 880 (S.C. 1995) (citations and bracket omitted); seealsoJennings, 664 A.2d at 908 ("[A] trial court may not punish a defendant for invokin......