State v. Austin

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Austin

279 S.E.2d 374, 276 S.C. 441, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 395

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 11, 1981

Docket21488

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 S.E.2d 374 (State v. Austin) 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

State v. Austin, 279 S.E.2d 374, 276 S.C. 441, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 395 (S.C. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted of manufacturing marijuana, a controlled substance, in violation of Section 44-53-370, Code of Laws of South Carolina. He was sentenced to five (5) years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000, suspended upon service of twelve (12) months and payment of $2,000 fine, with probation for five (5) years. He appeals from the conviction. We affirm.

Appellant questions the clarity and sufficiency of Section 44-53-370 in specifying the crime of “manufacture.” Basically, South Carolina has adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in Chapter 53 of Title 44, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. In the definitional portion of the Act, Section 44-53-110, the terms “manufacture” and “production” are used interchangeably tO' denote the acts of “planting, cultivation, growing or harvesting of a controlled substance.” We find nothing uncertain about either this statutory language or its application to the facts of this case. Careful review and consideration of the record herein reveals no error of the trial court. The evidence amply sustains the jury verdict of guilty, and we accordingly affirm.

Littlejohn, Ness, Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.

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

Lewis, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted of manufacturing marijuana, a controlled substance, in violation of Section 44-53-370, Code of Laws of South Carolina. He was sentenced to five (5) years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000, suspended upon service of twelve (12) months and payment of $2,000 fine, with probation for five (5) years. He appeals from the conviction. We affirm.

Appellant questions the clarity and sufficiency of Section 44-53-370 in specifying the crime of “manufacture.” Basically, South Carolina has adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in Chapter 53 of Title 44, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. In the definitional portion of the Act, Section 44-53-110, the terms “manufacture” and “production” are used interchangeably tO' denote the acts of “planting, cultivation, growing or harvesting of a controlled substance.” We find nothing uncertain about either this statutory language or its application to the facts of this case. Careful review and consideration of the record herein reveals no error of the trial court. The evidence amply sustains the jury verdict of guilty, and we accordingly affirm.

Littlejohn, Ness, Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 S.E.2d 374, 276 S.C. 441, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-austin-sc-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack