Title: Williams v. State

State: south-carolina

Issuer: South Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

306 S.C. 89 (1991) 410 S.E.2d 563 Moses WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. 23501 Supreme Court of South Carolina. Submitted September 25, 1991. Decided October 28, 1991. Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner. Attorney General T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Staff Atty., Lisa G. Jefferson, Columbia, for respondent. Submitted Sept. 25, 1991. Decided Oct. 28, 1991. CHANDLER, Justice: We granted certiorari to review the denial of post-conviction relief to Petitioner, Moses Williams, Jr. (Williams). We reverse. On February 24, 1989, Williams, involved in an argument with his girlfriend, stabbed her with a barbecue fork. He was indicted for assault and battery with intent to kill (ABIK), and for "visibly displaying what appeared to be a knife" during commission of the ABIK. Williams, pro se, pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced, respectively, to fifteen years and five years, consecutive. Did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction to accept Williams' plea to "visibly displaying what appeared to be a knife" during commission of the ABIK? S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-490 (Cum. Supp. 1990) provides additional punishment for possessing certain specified weapons during commission of a violent crime,[1] stating in part: A "knife" is defined in the statute as "an instrument or tool consisting of a sharp cutting blade ... capable of being used to inflict a cut, slash, or wound." (Emphasis supplied.) While a barbecue fork is an instrument capable of inflicting a wound, it has no sharp cutting blade; it, therefore, is not a "knife" within the meaning of the statute. *91 The remaining inquiry is whether Williams is subject to additional punishment for visibly displaying what appears to be a knife. We hold he is not. Penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant. State v. Cutler, 274 S.C. 376, 264 S.E. (2d) 420 (1980). As was aptly summarized by Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheaton 76, 95-96, 5 L. Ed. 37, 42 (1820): It is clear from the statute that a violent-crime defendant is subject to the additional punishment for visibly displaying what appears to be a firearm. It is equally clear that such a defendant is not subject to the additional punishment for displaying what appears to be a knife. The weapon must, in fact, be a knife. This Court is without authority to depart from the plain meaning of the words of the statute. Accordingly, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept Williams' plea to this offense. The portion of the sentence imposing five years for "visibly displaying what appears to be a knife" is vacated.[2] Reversed. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur. [1] ABIK is a violent crime under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-60 (Cum. Supp. 1990). [2] Certiorari was granted only to review this issue. The conviction for ABIK is unaffected.