State v. Payton

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.

Eugene Payton, Appellant.

Appeal From Berkeley County

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-244  

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 24, 2011

AFFIRMED

Grover C. Seaton, III, of Moncks Corner,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William Blitch, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Eugene Payton appeals his convictions for one count
of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and one count of committing a lewd act
on a minor, arguing the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges against
him because the statutes he was prosecuted under do not comport with Article
III of the South Carolina Constitution.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Smith, 181 S.C.
485, 485, 188 S.E. 132, 132-33 (1936) (holding the statute raising the age of
consent to sixteen years was not unconstitutional as conflicting with the constitutional
provision fixing the age of consent at fourteen years because the
constitutional provision does not create a criminal offense but operates only
on the question of consent, creating a new rule of evidence in the proof of
consent and declaring certain persons incapable of consenting).

AFFIRMED.   

SHORT,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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