State v. Kelly

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: July 29, 2015
• Docket: 2015-UP-372
• Status: Unpublished

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.

Sheldon Lamar Kelly, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000918

Appeal From Charleston County Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-372 Submitted July 1, 2015 – Filed July 29, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 586, 713 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2011) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only. A sentence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion when the ruling is based on an error of law . . . ." (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-45(A)(1)(a) (2014) (providing except where the death penalty is imposed, "upon a conviction for a most serious offense as defined by this section, a person must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole if that person has . . . one or more prior convictions for . . . a most serious offense"); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-45(C)(1) (2014) (classifying voluntary manslaughter and kidnapping as "most serious" offenses); State v. Standard, 351 S.C. 199, 206, 569 S.E.2d 325, 329 (2002) ("[A]n enhanced sentence based upon a prior most serious conviction for a crime which was committed as a juvenile does not offend evolving standards of decency so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment." (emphasis omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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