State v. Greene

CourtListener 10150007ScctappMar 22, 2017

Full text

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.

Christopher Jared Greene, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001002

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-127
Submitted March 1, 2017 – Filed March 22, 2017

AFFIRMED

Nicholas Gray Thomas, of Law Office of Nick Thomas,
LLC, of Folly Beach, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe,
Jr., of Orangeburg, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Morgan, 417 S.C. 338, 341, 790 S.E.2d 27, 29 (Ct. App. 2016)
("A sentence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion when the ruling
is based on an error of law." (quoting State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160, 163, 740
S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013))); State v. Cox, 326 S.C. 440, 442, 484 S.E.2d 108, 109
(Ct. App. 1997) ("The trial [court] has broad discretion in determining the manner,
method, and amount of restitution."); State v. Bynes, 304 S.C. 62, 64, 403 S.E.2d
126, 127 (Ct. App. 1991) ("Absent a positive rule limiting this discretion, a [trial
court] acts properly in considering restitution for unindicted offenses as a condition
of probation as long as the defendant knowingly consents to the [trial court's]
consideration of those crimes and there is some evidentiary basis for the amount of
restitution ordered."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-322(B)(4) (2014) ("In determining
the manner, method, or amount of restitution to be ordered, the [trial] court may
take into consideration . . . any burden or hardship upon the victim as a direct or
indirect result of the defendant's criminal acts.").

AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.