In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Jerry F. Powell

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

In the Matter
of the Care and Treatment of Jerry F. Powell, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-638

Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed
November 13, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, Assistant
Attorney General R. Westmoreland Clarkson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Jerry F. Powell appeals his commitment under
the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act (the Act).  Powell argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss because the State failed to follow procedure in the Act.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code §
44-48-80(A) (Supp. 2007) (“If the court determines that probable cause exists
to believe that the person is a sexually violent predator, the person must be
taken into custody if he is not already confined in a secure facility.”); S.C.
Code Ann. § 44-48-80(B) (Supp. 2007) (“This [probable cause] hearing must be
held within seventy-two hours after a person is taken into custody pursuant
to subsection (A).”) (emphasis added.); see also Hodges v. Rainey,
341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) (“The cardinal rule of statutory
construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature . . .
. Where the statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear
and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and
the court has no right to impose another meaning.”).  

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and
THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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