State v. Golson

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.

Stanley Golson, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-347 

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 6,
2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Stanley Golson
was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack
cocaine within proximity of a school.  The trial court sentenced Golson to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole under the recidivist statute. 
Golson appeals, arguing his sentence violates the cruel and unusual punishment
clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-45(B)(1)
(2003) (stating "upon a conviction for a serious offense . . . a person
must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of
parole if that person has two or more prior convictions for . . . a serious
offense"); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-45(C)(2)(b) (Supp. 2009) (defining "trafficking
in ice, crank, or crack cocaine" and "distribut[ing], sell[ing],
manufactur[ing], or possess[ing] with intent to distribute controlled substances
within proximity of school" as serious offenses); State v. Williams,
380 S.C. 336, 346, 669 S.E.2d 640, 646 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The cruel and unusual punishment clause requires
that the duration of a sentence not be grossly disproportionate with the
severity of the crime."); Id. at 347-48, 669 S.E.2d at 646 ("Our
courts have also determined stiff penalties for drug crimes do not violate the
constitutional prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment."); State v. Brannon, 341 S.C. 271, 281, 533 S.E.2d
345, 350 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding the enhanced penalty scheme for serious
offenses is not unconstitutional). 

AFFIRMED.

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

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