State v. John Kronenberger

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.

John Edward Kronenberger, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001683

Appeal From Dorchester County
Heath P. Taylor, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-377
Submitted November 1, 2025 – Filed November 19, 2025

AFFIRMED

Albert Peter Shahid, Jr., and Albert Peter Shahid, III,
both of Shahid Law Office, LLC, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mark Reynolds
Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor David M.
Pascoe, of Summerville, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John Edward Kronenberger appeals his sentence of thirty years'
imprisonment suspended upon the service of twenty-two years' imprisonment and
five years' probation following his guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter. On
appeal, Kronenberger argues the plea court abused its discretion by not considering
the totality of the circumstances in imposing the sentence. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the plea court did not abuse its discretion because the sentence was within
the statutory range for manslaughter and there was no evidence the sentence
resulted from "partiality, prejudice, oppression[,] or corrupt motive." See State v.
Palmer, 415 S.C. 502, 511, 783 S.E.2d 823, 827 (Ct. App. 2016) ("In criminal
cases, this court sits to review errors of law only, and is bound by the [plea] court's
factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous."); State v. Hicks, 377
S.C. 322, 325, 659 S.E.2d 499, 500 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A [court] is to be accorded
very wide discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, and must be permitted
to consider any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper
sentence for the particular defendant, given the crime committed."); State v.
Alexander, 230 S.C. 195, 197, 95 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1956) (explaining that the
defendant's appeal failed because his sentence was within the statutory limits, and
he did "not question the constitutionality of the statute under which he was
sentenced, nor [did he charge] partiality, prejudice, oppression[,] or corrupt
motive"); Garrett v. State, 320 S.C. 353, 356, 465 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1995) ("A
sentence is not excessive if it is within [the] statutory limitations and there are no
facts supporting an allegation of prejudice against [the defendant]."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 16-3-50 (2015) (stating a defendant convicted of manslaughter "must be
imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years").

AFFIRMED.1

MCDONALD, HEWITT, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

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