State v. Simpson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Simpson

DecidedMarch 14, 2012

Docket2012-UP-180

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Simpson (State v. Simpson) 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. Simpson, (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.

Tyson Simpson, Appellant.

Appeal from Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-180
Submitted March 1, 2012 Filed March 14, 2012

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tyson Simpson appeals his sentence for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, arguing the circuit court erred in considering charges that had been dismissed pursuant to his plea agreement 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 limits 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.

Tyson Simpson, Appellant.

Appeal from Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-180
Submitted March 1, 2012 Filed March 14, 2012

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tyson Simpson appeals his sentence for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, arguing the circuit court erred in considering charges that had been dismissed pursuant to his plea agreement 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 limits 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. Simpson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simpson-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack