State v. Camp

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.

Michael Douglas Camp, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002074

Appeal From Cherokee County
R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-478
Submitted August 1, 2015 – Filed October 7, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Douglas Camp appeals his concurrent five-year
sentences for breaking into a motor vehicle and third-degree burglary, arguing the
plea court abused its discretion in amending his sentence. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), 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. Franklin, 267 S.C. 240, 246, 226 S.E.2d 896, 898 (1976) (stating
an appellate court "has no jurisdiction to review a sentence, provided it is within
the limits provided by statute for the discretion of the trial court, and is not the
result of prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive"); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-13-
160(B) (2003) (stating an individual found guilty of breaking into a motor vehicle
"is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than five
years or fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both"); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-
11-313(B) (2003) ("Burglary in the third degree is a felony punishable by
imprisonment for not more than five years for conviction on a first offense and for
not more than ten years for conviction of a second offense according to the
discretion of the [c]ourt.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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