State v. Hall

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTAL 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.

Norma Patrick Hall,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-145

Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed
March 1, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, Office of Appellate
Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Walter M. Bailey, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Norma Patrick Hall was charged
with one count of homicide by child abuse, for which she entered a plea under
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).  She appeals her sentence,
arguing the circuit court failed to consider her diminished capacity due to
drug use as a mitigating factor during sentencing.  We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In April 2002, Hall was indicted for one count
of homicide by child abuse in connection with the death of her six-month old
son, Harley Benjamin Hall.  She entered into an Alford plea agreement
and was sentenced to forty years in prison.  During sentencing, the circuit
court refused to consider Hall’s diminished mental capacity resulting from drug
use, stating “The mitigation that has been forwarded for the Court’s consideration
has been that of drug abuse.  As you all know, diminished capacity is no defense
in South Carolina, and in this instance I fail to find it is a mitigating circumstance.”
 This appeal follows.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Hall argues the circuit court erred as a matter
of law by failing to consider diminished capacity resulting from her drug use
during her sentencing phase.  In fact, the trial judge clearly considered that
diminished capacity resulting from drug abuse may be a mitigating factor, but
determined it was not so in the present case.  Moreover, Hall did not object
when the circuit court imposed its sentence.  Thus, the issue of the sentence
is not preserved for our review.  State v. Johnston, 333 S.C. 459, 462,
510 S.E.2d 423, 425 (1999) (stating that a challenge to sentencing must be raised
at trial, or the issue will not be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ.,
concur.