State v. Alford

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Alford

DecidedJuly 20, 2016

Docket2016-UP-364

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Alford (State v. Alford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Alford, (S.C. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Billy Leon Alford, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001202

Appeal From Horry County Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-364 Submitted May 1, 2016 – Filed July 20, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 237, 708 S.E.2d 234, 235 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court reviews only errors of law and is bound by the factual findings of the trial court unless the findings are clearly erroneous."); State v. Zulfer, 345 S.C. 258, 261, 547 S.E.2d 885, 886 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A basic rule of statutory construction, which is equally applicable to criminal and civil statutes alike, is that a court must ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intention as expressed in the statute."); id. at 261-62, 547 S.E.2d at 886 ("In construing a statute, a court cannot read into the statute something not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself."); State v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96, 100, 662 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2008) ("[T]he words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction which limit or expand the statute's operation." (quoting Strickland v. Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 88-89, 650 S.E.2d 465, 472 (2007))); In re Ronnie A., 355 S.C. 407, 409, 585 S.E.2d 311, 312 (2003) ("The intent of the legislature in enacting the sex offender registry law is to protect the public from those offenders who may re- offend.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Billy Leon Alford, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001202

Appeal From Horry County Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-364 Submitted May 1, 2016 – Filed July 20, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 237, 708 S.E.2d 234, 235 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court reviews only errors of law and is bound by the factual findings of the trial court unless the findings are clearly erroneous."); State v. Zulfer, 345 S.C. 258, 261, 547 S.E.2d 885, 886 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A basic rule of statutory construction, which is equally applicable to criminal and civil statutes alike, is that a court must ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intention as expressed in the statute."); id. at 261-62, 547 S.E.2d at 886 ("In construing a statute, a court cannot read into the statute something not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself."); State v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96, 100, 662 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2008) ("[T]he words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction which limit or expand the statute's operation." (quoting Strickland v. Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 88-89, 650 S.E.2d 465, 472 (2007))); In re Ronnie A., 355 S.C. 407, 409, 585 S.E.2d 311, 312 (2003) ("The intent of the legislature in enacting the sex offender registry law is to protect the public from those offenders who may re- offend.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Alford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-alford-scctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack