State v. Sidell

Decision Date06 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 19816,19816
Citation262 S.C. 397,205 S.E.2d 2
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Lee Calvin SIDELL, Appellant.

Ernest B. Hinnant, Florence, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and Robert M. Ariail, Columbia, and Solicitor T. Kenneth Summerford, Florence, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice:

Appellant, represented by the Public Defender, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter under an indictment charging him with murder, and received a sentence of thirty (30) years, the maximum permitted under the law. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence so entered.

The Public Defender has advised the Court that he is convinced the appeal is wholly frivolous and requested leave to withdraw. He has complied with the requirements of Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493; and appellant has filed a brief prepared for him by an attorney, in which he contends that there is merit in his appeal and that his conviction and sentence should be set aside upon the grounds that (1) the evidence conclusively sustained his plea of self-defense and (2) the sentence was excessive.

There can be no doubt that, under the evidence, appellant's plea of self-defense presented a factual issue. The resolution of that issue against him by the jury is therefore conclusive.

A broad discretion is allowed the trial judge in imposing sentence within the legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 25 Marzo 2020
    ...unless they are clearly erroneous." (quoting State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001))); State v. Sidell, 262 S.C. 397, 398, 205 S.E.2d 2, 3 (1974) (stating the trial court has broad discretion when sentencing a defendant within statutory limits); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 ......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 25 Marzo 2020
    ... ... appellate court sits to review errors of law only. [This ... court is] bound by the trial court's factual findings ... unless they are clearly erroneous." (quoting State ... v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 ... (2001))); State v. Sidell, 262 S.C. 397, 398, 205 ... S.E.2d 2, 3 (1974) (stating the trial court has broad ... discretion when sentencing a defendant within statutory ... limits); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 ... S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs ... when the ... ...
  • Brooks v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1997
    ...discretion in sentencing within statutory limits. Garrett v. State, 320 S.C. 353, 465 [325 S.C. 272] S.E.2d 349 (1995); State v. Sidell, 262 S.C. 397, 205 S.E.2d 2 (1974). A sentence is not excessive if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of pr......
  • Garrett v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1996
    ...v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 409 S.E.2d 780 (1991). A judge is allowed broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits. State v. Sidell, 262 S.C. 397, 205 S.E.2d 2 (1974). A sentence is not excessive if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of pr......

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