State v. Boynton

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Boynton

DecidedMarch 7, 2018

Docket2018-UP-102

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Boynton (State v. Boynton) 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. Boynton, (S.C. Ct. App. 2018).

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.

Kenneth Ray Boynton, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001153

Appeal From Horry County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-102 Submitted February 1, 2018 – Filed March 7, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Boynton appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment, arguing the drug court lacked the authority to impose his suspended sentence when he failed to complete the program. We affirm.

We find the circuit court—not the drug court—imposed the sentence. See State v. Perkins, 378 S.C. 57, 61 n.3, 661 S.E.2d 366, 368 n.3 (2008) ("[Drug court] bodies do not have the authority to impose the suspended sentence."). Rather, the drug court acted within its authority when it terminated Boynton's participation in the drug court program, initiating Boynton's service of the circuit court's previously-imposed ten-year sentence. See Horry County Adult Drug Court Program, 2014-11-19-02 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated November 19, 2014) ("Sanctions may include, but are not limited to, public service work, additional treatment, issuance of a bench warrant, or termination of participation in the Adult Drug Court Program."); Perkins, 378 S.C. at 60, 661 S.E.2d at 368 (declining to review drug court termination decisions in order to avoid transforming the drug court programs into judicially-supervised institutions).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, 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.

Kenneth Ray Boynton, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001153

Appeal From Horry County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-102 Submitted February 1, 2018 – Filed March 7, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Boynton appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment, arguing the drug court lacked the authority to impose his suspended sentence when he failed to complete the program. We affirm.

We find the circuit court—not the drug court—imposed the sentence. See State v. Perkins, 378 S.C. 57, 61 n.3, 661 S.E.2d 366, 368 n.3 (2008) ("[Drug court] bodies do not have the authority to impose the suspended sentence."). Rather, the drug court acted within its authority when it terminated Boynton's participation in the drug court program, initiating Boynton's service of the circuit court's previously-imposed ten-year sentence. See Horry County Adult Drug Court Program, 2014-11-19-02 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated November 19, 2014) ("Sanctions may include, but are not limited to, public service work, additional treatment, issuance of a bench warrant, or termination of participation in the Adult Drug Court Program."); Perkins, 378 S.C. at 60, 661 S.E.2d at 368 (declining to review drug court termination decisions in order to avoid transforming the drug court programs into judicially-supervised institutions).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, 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. Boynton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boynton-scctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack