State v. Mims
| Citation | 335 S.E.2d 237,286 S.C. 553 |
| Decision Date | 25 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22376,22376 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Matthew MIMS, Appellant. |
Asst. Appellate Defender Stephen P. Williams, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, Lexington, for respondent.
Appellant pleaded guilty but mentally ill to assault with intent to kill. He was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty (20) years suspended upon the service of ten (10) years with probation for five (5) years. We remand for resentencing.
Appellant apparently fired a shotgun at police officers who were attempting to take him to the State Hospital for a court-ordered examination. The officers were not injured.
At the plea hearing, appellant's counsel argued that the maximum punishment for assault with intent to kill is ten (10) years since the twenty (20) year sentence for assault and battery with intent to kill requires both an assault and a battery. Although the trial judge expressed some uncertainty as to the maximum punishment, he ultimately imposed a twenty (20) year sentence.
The State contends that assault with intent to kill is properly punished as an assault and battery with intent to kill. We disagree.
Assault and battery is defined as "any touching of the person of an individual in a rude or angry manner, without justification." State v. Harden, 29 S.C.L. (2 Speers) 152 (1832). One degree of assault and battery is assault and battery with intent to kill which is classified as a felony and carries a maximum punishment of twenty (20) years. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 16-1-10 and 16-3-620 (1976).
Assault is "defined as an unlawful attempt or offer to commit a violent injury upon the person of another, coupled with a present ability to complete the attempt or offer by a battery." In re McGee, 278 S.C. 506, 299 S.E.2d 334 (1983); State v. Jones, 133 S.C. 167, 130 S.E. 747 (1925). It differs from assault and battery in that there is no touching of the victim. Therefore, it is clear that assault with intent to kill may not be punished as an assault and battery with intent to kill.
In our opinion, assault with intent to kill is a misdemeanor. 6A C.J.S. Assault & Battery § 63; see State v. Hill, 254 S.C. 321, 175 S.E.2d 227 (1970). Since the General Assembly has not provided a specific punishment for assault with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. US
...(Lexis 2002); State v. Coningford, 901 A.2d 623, 630 (R.I.2006); S.C.Code Ann. § 22-3-560(A) (Supp.2009); State v. Mims, 286 S.C. 553, 554, 335 S.E.2d 237 (1985) (per curiam); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(3) (2003); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a) (West Supp.2009); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-57(A......
-
Johnson v. United States, 08–6925.
...(Lexis 2002); State v. Coningford, 901 A.2d 623, 630 (R.I.2006); S.C.Code Ann. § 22–3–560(A) (Supp.2009); State v. Mims, 286 S.C. 553, 554, 335 S.E.2d 237 (1985) (per curiam); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–13–101(a)(3) (2003); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a) (West Supp.2009); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2–57(A......
-
State v. LaCoste
...been defined as "any touching of the person of an individual in a rude or angry manner, without justification." State v. Mims, 286 S.C. 553, 554, 335 S.E.2d 237, 237 (1985); see also State v. Germany, 211 S.C. 297, 300, 44 S.E.2d 840, 841 (1947) ("Violence [as included in the definition of ......
-
State v. Elliott
...injury upon another person, coupled with the present ability to complete the attempt or offer by a battery." State v. Mims, 286 S.C. 553, 554, 335 S.E.2d 237, 237 (1985). Assault differs from battery in that assault does not involve a touching of the victim. Id.; see also State v. Murphy, 3......