Case Name: The STATE, Respondent, v. Harry James AUSTIN, Jr., Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1981-06-11
Citations: 276 S.C. 441
Docket Number: 21488
Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Harry James AUSTIN, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: Littlejohn, Ness, Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 276
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
21488
The STATE, Respondent, v. Harry James AUSTIN, Jr., Appellant.
(279 S. E. (2d) 374)
Peter Connor Murphy, of McNair, Glenn, Konduros, Corley, Singletary, Porter & Dibble, Columbia, and Lanue Floyd, Kingstree, for appellant.
Atty. Gen., Darnel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kay G. Crowe and State’s Atty., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Sol., R. Kirk McLeod, Sumter, for respondent.
June 11, 1981.

Opinion:
Lewis, Chief Justice:
Appellant was convicted of manufacturing marijuana, a controlled substance, in violation of Section 44-53-370, Code of Laws of South Carolina. He was sentenced to five (5) years' imprisonment and a fine of $5,000, suspended upon service of twelve (12) months and payment of $2,000 fine, with probation for five (5) years. He appeals from the conviction. We affirm.
Appellant questions the clarity and sufficiency of Section 44-53-370 in specifying the crime of "manufacture." Basically, South Carolina has adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in Chapter 53 of Title 44, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. In the definitional portion of the Act, Section 44-53-110, the terms "manufacture" and "production" are used interchangeably tO' denote the acts of "planting, cultivation, growing or harvesting of a controlled substance." We find nothing uncertain about either this statutory language or its application to the facts of this case. Careful review and consideration of the record herein reveals no error of the trial court. The evidence amply sustains the jury verdict of guilty, and we accordingly affirm.
Littlejohn, Ness, Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.