The State v. Jacobs, No. 27015.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: Chief Justice TOAL.
• Citation: 713 S.E.2d 621,393 S.C. 584
• Parties: The STATE, Respondentv.Abel JACOBS, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 27015.
• Decision Date: 25 July 2011

393 S.C. 584
713 S.E.2d 621

The STATE, Respondent
v.
Abel JACOBS, Appellant.

No. 27015.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 22, 2011.Decided July 25, 2011.

[713 S.E.2d 622]

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.Chief Justice TOAL.

[393 S.C. 586] Abel Jacobs (Appellant) appeals the circuit court's decision that a sentence for burglary in the first degree cannot be suspended under the language of South Carolina Code section 24–21–410. We affirm.

Procedural Background

In January 2010, Appellant pled guilty to a variety of criminal charges, including a charge for first degree burglary. At the plea hearing, defense counsel asked the circuit judge to suspend the minimum fifteen year sentence for first degree burglary in lieu of placing Appellant under probation. Defense counsel opined that state courts have routinely suspended sentences for first degree burglary, and the State has never appealed those sentences. The circuit judge deferred sentencing Appellant for the first degree burglary conviction at the plea hearing, and requested the parties submit memoranda in support of their positions regarding the suspension issue. The circuit judge subsequently issued an order finding that a sentence for the conviction of first degree burglary is not suspendable under section 24–21–410 of the South Carolina Code. At the sentencing hearing, the circuit judge sentenced Appellant to fifteen years imprisonment for first degree burglary, along with concurrent sentences for remaining charges, crediting Appellant for time served prior to his guilty plea.

Issue

Whether a sentence for the conviction of first degree burglary can be suspended under section 24–21–410 of the South Carolina Code.

Standard of Review

“In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only.” State v. Williams, 386 S.C. 503, 509, 690 S.E.2d 62, 65 (2010). “A sentence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion when the ruling is based on an error of law....” In re M.B.H, 387 S.C. 323, 326, 692 S.E.2d 541, 541 (2010).

[393 S.C. 587] Analysis

Appellant argues the circuit court erred in concluding that a sentence for a conviction for first degree burglary is not suspendable under section 24–21–410 of the South Carolina Code. We disagree.

“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent.” Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). As such, a court must abide by the plain meaning of the words of a statute. Id. When interpreting the plain meaning of a statute, courts should not resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. Grazia v. S.C. State Plastering, LLC, 390 S.C. 562, 569, 703 S.E.2d 197, 200 (2010). “Where the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and...