Court Opinion

ID: 9852225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:26:48.13892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:24.405488
License: Public Domain

GOOLSBY, J.
(dissenting):
I dissent. I would hold that defense counsel’s admission that he was aware of the State’s intention to seek a life sentence without parole against his client gave the trial court sufficient reason to sentence Johnson accordingly.
The legislature has made the sentencing provisions of section 17-25-45(A) mandatory.2 It would follow that, as long as the requirements of due process are met,3 the State’s failure *73to provide written notice would more appropriately call for sanctioning those responsible for the procedural irregularity rather than allowing a repeat offender to avoid a statutorily required sentence.4
Moreover, in State v. Washington,5 the South Carolina Supreme Court held section 17-25-45 requires only actual notice. In that case, the State initially sent the defendant written notice that it would seek a life sentence without parole under section 17-25-45. Because of errors in the indictment, the State later re-indicted the defendant, but did not send a second notice.
The supreme court held the State “was not precluded from applying section 17-25-45 because, even without a second notice, Defendant had actual notice that the State would be seeking life without parole.”6 In so holding, the supreme court observed, “This Court has found that under such notice statutes, the law only requires actual notice.”7
*74As the majority notes, the defendant in Washington had once received written notice of the State’s intent to invoke section 17-25-45. Despite this factual difference, I would hold Washington is applicable to this case.
First, I think it is significant that, although the supreme court could have emphasized the fact that the requirements of section 17-25-45 had already been satisfied, it chose instead to base its holding on the fact that the defendant had actual notice of the State’s intent. In other words, the basis for the supreme court’s decision was not the State’s earlier compliance with the statutory requirement of written notice when it initially indicted the defendant but the inference that the prior notice was sufficient to inform the defendant of the possibility that he could receive a sentence of life imprisonment "without the possibility of parole after the second indictment was issued. In addition, as noted in footnote 4 of the opinion, “[t]here would be no duty to inform Defendant about seeking the statute’s application if it were not for the statutory provision.” 8
The pivotal inquiry, then, is not whether the statutory procedures were followed, but whether the purpose of the statute has been satisfied. The reasoning used by the supreme court to support its decision in Washington indicates a trial court should avoid á “bright line” approach in deciding whether to sentence a defendant to life imprisonment without parole pursuant to section 17-25-45 when there is a dispute concerning whether the State complied with technical requirements of the statute.
Here, it is undisputed defense counsel had actual notice that the State intended to seek a sentence of life imprisonment *75without parole. In view of the supreme court’s holding in Washington that section 17-25-45 requires only actual notice of such intent, I would hold the trial court erred in declining to sentence Johnson as the State requested. Accordingly, I would reverse Johnson’s sentence and remand the case to the trial court for sentencing to life imprisonment without parole.

. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-25-45(G) (Supp.2000). This subsection also states the solicitor has the discretion to invoke the sentencing provision under paragraph (B), which provides for a life sentence without parole upon conviction of a “serious offense” under certain conditions. In addition, South Carolina section 17-25-45 (A) provides that a person convicted a third time of a most serious offense "must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole.” Id. § 17-25-45(A) (emphasis added).

. The requirement of written notice in section 17-25-45 is a procedural safeguard beyond the requirements of due process. See Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962) (holding defendants must receive only reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard *73relative to recidivist charges); State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 515 S.E.2d 525 (1999) (stating that, under the South Carolina Constitution, there is no duty to advise a defendant that the State is seeking an enhanced sentence under section 17-25-45); see also Massey v. State, 609 So.2d 598 (Fla.1992) (holding the prosecution's failure to serve notice of its intent to have the defendant sentenced as an habitual offender was harmless error in view of the stated purpose of the statutory notice requirement); cf. Tasco v. Butler, 835 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir.1988) (remanding for a determination of whether the defendant and his attorney had received sufficient notice to prepare a defense to recidivism charges and, if not, a determination of whether the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of this procedural deficiency).

. Cf. State v. Culbreath, 282 S.C. 38, 316 S.E.2d 681 (1984) (holding the failure of the solicitor to act on a warrant within a certain period of time set by the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure would subject the solicitor to contempt proceedings but would not invalidate the warrant or prevent subsequent prosecution).

. 338 S.C. 392, 526 S.E.2d 709 (2000).

. Id. at 398, 526 S.E.2d at 712.

. Id. (emphases added). In support of this holding, the supreme court cited State v. McWee, 322 S.C. 387, 472 S.E.2d 235 (1996), and State v. Young, 319 S.C. 33, 459 S.E.2d 84 (1995), both of which dealt with notice requirements in death penalty cases. The majority correctly states that the statute requiring notice in these cases, in contrast to section 17-25 — 45, does not specify the manner in which the solicitor is *74to give the notice. In my view, however, the very fact that the supreme court relied on McWee and Young in deciding Washington only strengthens the argument that the focus of 17-25-45 should be on whether the necessary individuals had actual notice rather than on whether notice was given in the manner prescribed in the statute. Certainly, the prospect of a death sentence is at least as serious, if not more so, than that of a life sentence without parole. As the supreme court must have recognized, to allow more leeway in notifying a defendant of the first possibility would be a disturbing incongruity in the administration of justice.

. Washington, 338 S.C. at 398 n. 4, 526 S.E.2d at 712 n. 4.