State v. Patterson, 21788

Citation295 S.E.2d 264,278 S.C. 319
Decision Date13 September 1982
Docket NumberNo. 21788,21788
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Wardell PATTERSON, Jr., Appellant.

David I. Bruck, of S. C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes and Asst. Atty. Gen. Lindy Pike Funkhouser, Columbia and Sol. William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

Appellant pled guilty to armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to death as recommended by a jury. We vacate the guilty plea and death sentence and remand for a new trial.

We raise the validity of appellant's guilty plea and sentencing proceedings ex mero motu, although no exception was taken and no argument was made by counsel. On appeal from a murder conviction in which the death penalty is imposed, this Court reviews the entire record for prejudicial error in favorem vitae, regardless of whether the error was properly preserved for review. State v. Shaw, 273 S.C. 194, 255 S.E.2d 799, cert. den. 444 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 437, 62 L.Ed.2d 329 (1979); State v. Boone, 228 S.C. 438, 90 S.E.2d 640 (1956).

Appellant and three codefendants were indicted for the August 18, 1980 armed robbery and murder of Ted Bryant Graham while he was working in a Fast Fare convenience store in Fort Mill, South Carolina. On October 29, 1980, after a jury was impaneled, appellant pled guilty to murder and armed robbery, conditioned on his being sentenced by the jury. Two of appellant's codefendants were tried and found guilty of murder and armed robbery on October 31, 1980. After the sentencing hearing, the trial jury recommended a death sentence for appellant and life sentences for his two codefendants. The judge then imposed those sentences.

Section 16-3-20(B) of the 1976 South Carolina Code [Cum.Supp.1981] provides in pertinent part:

Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of murder, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable after the lapse of twenty-four hours unless waived by the defendant. If the trial jury has been waived by the defendant and the State, or if the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before the court.... [Emphasis added]

Although Section 16-3-20(B) is imprecisely drafted, the portion emphasized above clearly governs sentencing after a plea of guilty to murder. It specifies the sentencing hearing shall be "before the court" if the trial jury has been waived or if the defendant pled guilty. When read in the context of the entire subsection, the word "court" obviously refers to the trial judge.

In this case, appellant's counsel informed the solicitor and the trial judge that appellant would plead guilty if the jury recommended his sentence. The solicitor argued vigorously there is no constitutional right to jury determination of sentence and the statute does not offer a defendant that option. The trial judge ruled a defendant has the statutory right to a jury determination of punishment and made that condition part of appellant's recorded plea bargain. In so ruling, the trial judge erred. 1

The question arises whether we must remand the case for a new sentencing proceeding before the trial judge or vacate the guilty plea and remand for a new trial altogether.

A plea of guilty is more than an admission of conduct; it is a conviction which leaves only the punishment to be determined. A defendant who...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Torrence
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 1, 1989
    ...denied, 459 U.S. 932, 103 S.Ct. 242, 74 L.Ed.2d 191 (1982);State v. J.A. Butler, 277 S.C. 543, 290 S.E.2d 420 (1982);State v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 319, 295 S.E.2d 264 (1982) (I);State v. Smart, 278 S.C. 515, 299 S.E.2d 686 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1088, 103 S.Ct. 1784, 76 L.Ed.2d 353 (......
  • Smith v. Murray
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1986
    ...to blind itself to the real issue—the propriety of allowing the state to conduct an illegal execution"); State v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 319, 320-321, 295 S.E.2d 264, 264-265 (1982) ("On appeal from a murder conviction in which the death penalty is imposed, this Court reviews the entire record......
  • Calhoun v. State, s. 129
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • November 21, 1983
    ...687, 259 P.2d 1056, 1059 (1953); Commonwealth v. McKenna, 476 Pa. 428, 437-41, 383 A.2d 174, 179-81 (1978); State v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 319, 320, 295 S.E.2d 264, 264-65 (1982); State v. Brown, 607 P.2d 261, 264-65 (Utah 1980); State v. Morris, 41 Wyo. 128, 146-47, 283 P. 406, 411 (1929). B......
  • State v. Copeland, 21808
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 10, 1982
    ...death sentences for retrial must be disregarded in the course of proportionality review. State v. Truesdale, supra; State v. Patterson, S.C., 295 S.E.2d 264 (1982); State v. James Anthony Butler, S.C., 290 S.E.2d 420 (1982); State v. Woomer, S.C., 284 S.E.2d 357 (1981); State v. Plath, supr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT