State v. Martin, 21811
| Decision Date | 23 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21811,21811 |
| Citation | 278 S.C. 427,298 S.E.2d 87 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Willie James MARTIN, Appellant. |
Robert L. Hallman, Columbia, for appellant.
State Atty., Carolyn M. Adams, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant pled guilty to two counts of distribution of marijuana in violation of Section 44-53-370(a) South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976 and was sentenced to consecutive terms of two years on each count. After his guilty plea, he was granted a hearing and sought to prove under the authority of Section 44-53-460, South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, that the distribution was an accommodation offense only, entitling him to a lesser sentence. The trial judge held that the offense was not committed as an accommodation, and imposed sentence for the offense to which appellant had pled. Appeal is from that ruling and sentence.
Code Section 44-53-460, supra, provides that upon a plea or conviction of any person under Code Section 44-53-370(a) of the distribution of a controlled substance (here marijuana) shall, upon motion, be granted a further hearing "at which evidence may be presented by the person, and by the prosecution if it so desires, relating to the nature of the act on the basis of which the person has been convicted." The Code Section then states:
If the convicted person establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he delivered or possessed with intent to deliver a controlled substance, except ... (exception not here applicable), only as an accommodation to another individual and not with intent to profit thereby nor to induce the recipient or intended recipient of the controlled or counterfeit substance to use or become addicted to or dependent upon the substance, the court shall sentence the person as if he had been convicted of a violation of Section 44-53-370(c), [simple possession of a controlled substance].
This section simply provides that, upon a plea or conviction of distribution of a controlled substance, upon motion, the trial judge shall conduct a hearing as a part of the sentencing procedure to determine if the distribution was done as an accommodation. If the convicted person establishes "clear and convincing evidence" that it was an accommodation distribution, the trial judge shall impose the lesser sentence provided for simple possession of the controlled substance.
The statute does not exonerate appellant upon showing that he distributed marijuana as an accommodation, but only allows such testimony on the question of mitigation of sentence.
The hearing contemplated by the statute is one to determine whether the mitigating circumstance of accommodation was involved in the commission of the crime. The State may, but is not required to, introduce testimony. The burden is placed on the convicted person to establish by clear and convincing evidence his claim that he committed the crime as an accommodation. The trial judge then determines whether all of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes the defendant's right to be sentenced under the lesser penalty because the greater offense was committed only as an accommodation.
Appellant has filed one exception to the proceedings below. In that exception, the sole contention is that the trial judge erred in refusing to sentence appellant in accordance with the punishment provided for an accommodation distribution "because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cutro, 24834.
...the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses and is therefore in a better position to evaluate their veracity. Cf. State v. Martin, 278 S.C. 427, 298 S.E.2d 87 (1982); State v. Rosier, 312 S.C. 145, 439 S.E.2d 307 Although there may have been some conflicts in the evidence presented in t......
-
State v. Cobb, 3460.
...and HUFF, J., concur. 1. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-460 (2002); Porter v. State, 290 S.C. 38, 348 S.E.2d 172 (1986). 2. State v. Martin, 278 S.C. 427, 298 S.E.2d 87 (1982). 3. Cf. Iowa v. McDaniel, 265 N.W.2d 917 (Iowa 1978) (holding defendant's delivery of drugs in exchange for sex is an accomm......
- Bradley, Matter of, 21816
-
Porter v. State, 22605
...to cause another's addiction. If he meets this burden, he is sentenced as though convicted of simple possession. See State v. Martin, 278 S.C. 427, 298 S.E.2d 87 (1982). Evidence of an accommodation sale is considered only in mitigation of sentence and does not affect the nature of the unde......