TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Cutler

The STATE, Respondent, v. Steven H. CUTLER, Appellant

State v. Cutler, 264 S.E.2d 420 (S.C. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 18, 1980
Docket
No. 21171
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
264 S.E.2d 420274 S.C. 3761980 S.C. LEXIS 309

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam:

Appellant pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to ten (10) years under S. C. Code § 16-11-330(1). The lower court held that although appellant was twenty years old when he committed the crime, he was ineligible to be sentenced under the Youthful Offenders Act (S. C. Code § 24-19-10 et seq.)

because he was twenty-one years old when convicted of the crime. We affirm.

South Carolina Code § 16-11-330(1) states in part:

Provided, that any person under the age of twenty-one sentenced under the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 24 (the Youthful Offenders Act) for the crime of armed robbery shall receive and serve a minimum sentence of at least three years, no part of which shall be suspended.

Appellant argues that this language is ambiguous; it can be interpreted to mean that the Youthful Offenders Act may be applied to anyone who was less *378 than twenty-one years old when the crime was committed; or that the Youthful Offenders Act may be used to sentence anyone who was less than twenty-one when convicted of the crime. Under general rules of statutory construction, a penal statute is construed strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant.

See cases collected in West’s S. C. Digest, Statutes, Key No. 241(1). Appellant therefore argues that he can be sentenced as a youthful offender.

In making the foregoing argument, appellant has failed to give effect to the next paragraph of S. C. Code § 16-11-330(1). That paragraph states:

Provided, further, that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five who is convicted of the crime of armed robbery may be sentenced under the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 24 (the Youthful Offenders Act). [Emphasis added].

This paragraph, when construed with its preceding paragraph, clarifies any ambiguity. The phrase “who is convicted of the crime of armed robbery” modifies the word “person” in that sentence. The intent of this statute is clearly that the age at conviction determine whether or not one may be sentenced as a youthful offender. This interpretation is augmented by the definition of youthful offender contained in S. C. Code § 24-19-10 (d). There, youthful offender is defined as “all male and female offenders who are seventeen but less than twenty-five years of age at the time of conviction.”

(Emphasis added.)

The Youthful Offenders Act is a general statute which applies to anyone who is between the ages of seventeen and twenty-five when convicted of a crime. S. C. Code § 24-19-50 (1976);

Creel v. State, 262 S. C. 558, 206 S. E. (2d) 825 (1974). The armed robbery statute specifically provides anyone between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five when convicted of armed robbery may not be treated as a youthful offender. Under general rules of statutory construction, where there is a conflict between a *379 general statute and a specific statute, the specific statute prevails.

See cases collected in West’s S. C. Digest, Statutes, Key No. 223.4.

Based on the preceding analysis, we hold that a person who is twenty-one years or more at the time he is convicted of armed robbery may not be sentenced under the provisions of the Youthful Offenders Act. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (although penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the State, where there is a conflict between a general statute and a specific statute, the specific prevails)

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1990: 11991: 41992: 12004: 22007: 12008: 119902026peak 1991 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Burton391 S.E.2d 583 (S.C. 1990)
  2. State v. Blackmon403 S.E.2d 660 (S.C. 1991)
  3. Hinton v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services592 S.E.2d 335 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)
  4. Williams v. State410 S.E.2d 563 (S.C. 1991)
  5. Hair v. State406 S.E.2d 332 (S.C. 1991)
  6. Elmore v. State409 S.E.2d 397 (S.C. 1991)

Most recent

  1. State v. Brannon666 S.E.2d 272 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008)
  2. State v. Bixby644 S.E.2d 54 (S.C. 2007)
  3. Fernanders v. State597 S.E.2d 787 (S.C. 2004)
  4. Hinton v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services592 S.E.2d 335 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)
  5. Rainey v. State414 S.E.2d 131 (S.C. 1992)
  6. Williams v. State410 S.E.2d 563 (S.C. 1991)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Creel v. State, 206 S.E.2d 825 (S.C. 1974) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list