State v. Bowers

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.

Arthur Jason Bowers, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000868

Appeal From Laurens County
Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-196
Submitted May 8, 2020 – Filed June 24, 2020

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and
Assistant Attorney General Sherrie Butterbaugh, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of
Greenwood, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Arthur Jason Bowers was convicted of murder, armed robbery,
and conspiracy. He was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment on the first charge,
thirty years' on the second, and five years' on the third; all to run concurrent.

The crimes occurred in 2003, when Bowers was seventeen. He was indicted
shortly thereafter and the charges were initially dismissed, but prosecutors took the
case up again years later. The trial occurred in 2018, when Bowers was thirty-two.

In this direct appeal, Bowers claims his sentence is for all intents and purposes a
life sentence without the possibility of parole. Bowers believes it is more likely
that he will die in prison than live to reach his projected release date. Section
16-3-20 of the South Carolina Code (2015) makes him ineligible for parole.

Bowers argues this makes his sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the South Carolina
Constitution. In his view, a sentencing court may not impose the functional
equivalent of a life without parole sentence without conducting an individualized
sentencing proceeding and considering "the mitigating hallmark features of youth"
pursuant to Aiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534, 545, 765 S.E.2d 572, 578 (2014).

While this appeal was in briefing, our state's supreme court decided State v.
Slocumb, 426 S.C. 297, 827 S.E.2d 148 (2019). That case held Aiken did not apply
to "de facto" life sentences—lengthy prison sentences when a prisoner's parole
eligibility falls outside his projected life expectancy. Id. at 314-15, 827 S.E.2d at
157.

Slocumb directly forecloses the Eighth Amendment argument Bowers makes here.
Accepting as true Bowers's argument that he is unlikely to live long enough to
reach his projected release date, Slocumb says the trial court was not required to
consider Bowers's youth before imposing such a lengthy sentence.

We decline to reach Bowers's argument that his sentence violates the South
Carolina Constitution. Bowers did not make a contemporaneous objection below.
Thus, there was no argument—either generic or specific—that the sentence was
unconstitutional. Multiple authorities recognize that issues may not be raised for
the first time on appeal and that error preservation rules apply to constitutional
arguments. See Rule 220(b), SCACR (stating issues must be preserved in the
record to be addressed on appeal); e.g., State v. Powers, 331 S.C. 37, 42-43, 501
S.E.2d 116, 118 (1998) (stating "failure to raise constitutional issues at trial results
in waiver on appeal").
AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.