State v. Moultrie, Jeremiah

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.

Jeremiah Prince
Moultrie, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

J. C. "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr.,
Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-470

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October
28, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, and
Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jeremiah
Prince Moultrie appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex
offender, second offense.  We affirm.[1]    

In 2006, Moultrie was
convicted of failure to register, first offense, and indecent exposure.  Prior
to Moultrie's release from prison, a caseworker for the South Carolina Department
of Corrections (the Department) verbally informed Moultrie that he must
register with the Sheriff's Department in the county where he would live within
twenty-four hours of his release.  The caseworker also provided Moultrie with
the standard sex offender registration paperwork.  It provided, "Persons
being released from the [Department] . . . at the completion of their sentence
. . . MUST register with the Sheriff of the county in which he intends to
reside within one (1) business day of his sentencing." 

Moultrie argues the trial
court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because he did not
receive adequate written notice regarding the sex offender registry requirements.
Specifically, Moultrie notes the paperwork provided by his caseworker was
inadequate because it incorrectly provided that he was required to register
within one business day of his sentencing.  We disagree.

Section 23-3-440(1) of the South Carolina Code (2007) requires
the Department to "provide verbal and written notification to the
offender that he must register with the sheriff of the county in which he
intends to reside within one business day of his release."  (emphases
added).    Further, section 23-3-480(A) of the South Carolina Code (2007)
states a person will have actual notice of the duty to register if arrested on
charges of failure to register. 

Here, Moultrie had actual
notice of his duty to register because he was convicted of failure to register
in 2006.  Moreover, Moultrie received
both written and verbal notice of the registration requirement.  Moultrie's
caseworker testified he verbally informed Moultrie of this registration
requirement prior to his release.  Furthermore, the caseworker provided Moultrie
with paperwork, which set forth the registration requirements.  Although the
paperwork contained a scrivener's error regarding the time in which Moultrie
was required to register, the paperwork did notify Moultrie he was required to
register.  Furthermore, the paperwork referenced section 23-3-440.  

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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