Campbell v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Campbell v. State

269 S.E.2d 344, 275 S.C. 249, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 426

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 11, 1980

Docket21283

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 S.E.2d 344 (Campbell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell v. State, 269 S.E.2d 344, 275 S.C. 249, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 426 (S.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant pled guilty to armed robbery and burglary and was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment. He appeals from the dismissal and denial of his application for Post-Conviction Relief. We affirm.

Appellant contends that he is entitled to credit against his present sentence for time served under a 1959 conviction for safecracking which was later held invalid. The availability of credit against sentences for future crimes after an individual has regained his freedom pursuant to an invalidation of his conviction would provide a sense of immunity and an incentive to engage in criminal conduct. Miller v. Cox, 4 Cir., 443 F. 2d 1019 (1971). Public policy considerations greatly outweigh any claim for requital for the illegal detention to which appellant has been subjected. His contention must therefore be denied.

We have considered appellant’s remaining allegation and are of the opinion that no error of law is present and that a full written opinion would be without precedential value. We therefore affirm under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Appellant pled guilty to armed robbery and burglary and was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment. He appeals from the dismissal and denial of his application for Post-Conviction Relief. We affirm.

Appellant contends that he is entitled to credit against his present sentence for time served under a 1959 conviction for safecracking which was later held invalid. The availability of credit against sentences for future crimes after an individual has regained his freedom pursuant to an invalidation of his conviction would provide a sense of immunity and an incentive to engage in criminal conduct. Miller v. Cox, 4 Cir., 443 F. 2d 1019 (1971). Public policy considerations greatly outweigh any claim for requital for the illegal detention to which appellant has been subjected. His contention must therefore be denied.

We have considered appellant’s remaining allegation and are of the opinion that no error of law is present and that a full written opinion would be without precedential value. We therefore affirm under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.E.2d 344, 275 S.C. 249, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-state-sc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack