Opinion
2016-UP-290
06-15-2016
The State, Respondent, v. Brad Day, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2014-000306
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant. Tommy Evans, Jr., of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted April 1, 2016
Appeal From Lexington County Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Tommy Evans, Jr., of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-560(A) (2007) ("[A]ny sentence for a 'no parole offense' as defined in Section 24-13-100 must include any term of incarceration and completion of a community supervision program operated by the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services"); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-100 (2007) ("For purposes of definition under South Carolina law, a 'no parole offense' means a class A, B, or C felony . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-90(C) (Supp. 2015) (providing second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor is a Class C felony); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-560(C) (2007) ("If the [circuit] court determines that a prisoner has [willfully] violated a term or condition of the community supervision program, the court may . . . revoke the prisoner's community supervision and impose a sentence of up to one year . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-560(D) (Supp. 2015) ("The prisoner must not be incarcerated for a period longer than the original sentence."); State v. Picklesimer, 388 S.C. 264, 268, 695 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2010) ("[T]he 'original sentence, ' as referenced in section 24-21-560(D), includes both the suspended and unsuspended portions of a circuit court's sentence; it is, in fact, the total sentence handed down by the court."); State v. Blakney, 410 S.C. 244, 251, 763 S.E.2d 622, 626 (Ct. App. 2014) (ruling "the existence of a term of probation for the prisoner in Picklesimer did not make its holding any less applicable to CSP revocations that do not involve a term of probation").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A. J, concur