State v. Simmons

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.

Eddie Simmons, Appellant.

Appeal From Beaufort County

J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-290

Submitted March 1, 2012 - Filed May 9,
2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Eddie Simmons appeals the circuit court's
denial of his motion to reconsider his sentence for second-degree burglary,
non-violent. Simmons argues a statutory amendment that lowered the maximum
sentence for the offense, which became effective after his sentencing, should
be applied retroactively to his case. We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 237-38, 708 S.E.2d 234, 235 (Ct. App. 2011)
("The authority to change a sentence rests solely and exclusively within the discretion of the sentencing judge."); State v. Varner, 310
S.C. 264, 265, 423 S.E.2d 133, 133 (1992) ("In the absence of a controlling statute, the common law requires that a
convicted criminal receive the punishment in effect at the time he is
sentenced, unless it is greater than the punishment provided for when the
offense was committed."); id. at 265, 423 S.E.2d at 134 ("The correct penalty is the one in effect at
the time of sentencing, even if the penalty is repealed while appeal is
pending."); id. ("[A] criminal defendant receives the benefit
of punishment mitigated by legislative amendment only when the amendment
becomes effective before sentence is pronounced.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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