Opinion ID: 2507480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the 2004 pardon relieved Respondent of his registration requirements.

Text: Respondent argues that the 2004 pardon relieved him of the requirement to register as a sex offender. We agree. Section 24-21-940(A) of the South Carolina Code defines pardon as the circumstance when an individual is fully pardoned from all the legal consequences of his crime and of his conviction, direct and collateral, including the punishment, whether of imprisonment, pecuniary penalty or whatever else the law has provided. S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-940 (2007). When a statute's terms are clear and unambiguous on their face, there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning. Miller v. Aiken, 364 S.C. 303, 307, 613 S.E.2d 364, 366 (2005). In State v. Baucom, 340 S.C. 339, 531 S.E.2d 922 (2000), this Court addressed the use of pardoned convictions as an enhancement device. In that case, SCDPPPS pardoned the defendant for ten offenses, including convictions for driving under the influence. Id. at 341, 531 S.E.2d at 922. Five years after the pardon, police charged Baucom with another DUI offense, and he argued that his pardoned offenses should not be used to enhance that charge. Id. at 341-42, 531 S.E.2d at 922-23. The trial court disagreed and sentenced Baucom under section 56-5-2940 of the South Carolina Code, which at the time provided: Any conviction, entry of plea of guilty or of nolo contendere or forfeiture of bail, for the violation of any law or ordinance... that prohibits a person from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs, or narcotics shall constitute a prior offense for the purpose of any prosecution for any subsequent violation hereof. S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-2940 (1991 & Supp.1999). The court of appeals affirmed the sentence, and held that the phrase any conviction necessarily included pardoned convictions. Baucom, 340 S.C. at 344, 531 S.E.2d at 924. This Court disagreed, holding that punishment is only one of the consequences absolved by a pardon under South Carolina law. Id. (noting that the individual is absolved of all consequences of his crime and conviction and that all of his civil rights are restored). In the instant case, SCDPPPS pardoned Respondent in 2004. Thus, in light of the command of section 24-21-940 of the South Carolina Code, the circuit court correctly held that the pardon relieved Respondent from all direct and collateral consequences of his pardoned crime, which would necessarily include placement on the sex offender registry and continuous compliance with its registration requirements.