State v. Goodwin

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Goodwin

DecidedFebruary 29, 2012

Docket2012-UP-124

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Goodwin (State v. Goodwin) 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. Goodwin, (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).

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.

Willie Goodwin, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-124
Submitted February 1, 2012 Filed February 29, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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.

PER CURIAM: Willie Goodwin appeals his sentence for five counts of distribution of marijuana, third offense, and one count of failure to stop for a blue light, arguing the plea judge erred in refusing to reconsider the sentence imposed after Goodwin's guilty plea. Specifically, Goodwin argues the plea judge improperly considered inaccurate and prejudicial remarks made by the State during sentencing. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Hicks, 377 S.C. 322, 325, 659 S.E.2d 499, 500 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A judge or other sentencing authority is to be accorded very wide discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, and must be permitted to consider any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sentence for the particular defendant, given the crime committed."); State v. Barton, 325 S.C. 522, 531, 481 S.E.2d 439, 444 (Ct. App. 1997) ("Absent partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive, this [c]ourt lacks jurisdiction to disturb a sentence that is within the limit prescribed by statute.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, 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.

Willie Goodwin, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-124
Submitted February 1, 2012 Filed February 29, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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.

PER CURIAM: Willie Goodwin appeals his sentence for five counts of distribution of marijuana, third offense, and one count of failure to stop for a blue light, arguing the plea judge erred in refusing to reconsider the sentence imposed after Goodwin's guilty plea. Specifically, Goodwin argues the plea judge improperly considered inaccurate and prejudicial remarks made by the State during sentencing. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Hicks, 377 S.C. 322, 325, 659 S.E.2d 499, 500 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A judge or other sentencing authority is to be accorded very wide discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, and must be permitted to consider any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sentence for the particular defendant, given the crime committed."); State v. Barton, 325 S.C. 522, 531, 481 S.E.2d 439, 444 (Ct. App. 1997) ("Absent partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive, this [c]ourt lacks jurisdiction to disturb a sentence that is within the limit prescribed by statute.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Goodwin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-goodwin-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack