State v. Moon

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedJune 6, 2007
Docket2007-UP-283
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Moon (State v. Moon) 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. Moon, (S.C. Ct. App. 2007).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


The State, Respondent,

v.

Jeremy Richard Moon, Appellant.


Appeal From York County
 L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-283
Submitted June 1, 2007 – Filed June 6, 2007  


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellant Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,  of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jeremy Moon appeals his conviction and sentence for voluntary manslaughter.  Moon pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter for striking the victim in the head with a baseball bat.  The trial court sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment.  On appeal, Moon argues this sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate.  We disagree.  Thirty years imprisonment is within the statutory range for voluntary manslaughter and does not run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  State v. Kimbrough, 212 S.C. 348, 46 S.E.2d 273 (1948) (“The weight of authority is to the effect that if the statute fixing the punishment for an offense is not unconstitutional, a sentence within the limits prescribed by such statute will not be regarded as cruel and unusual.”).  After a thorough review of the record and briefs, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.          

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. Williams
406 S.E.2d 357 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1991)
State v. Kimbrough
46 S.E.2d 273 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Moon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moon-scctapp-2007.