S1154 - major overhaul of South Carolina's criminal code
On June 2, bill S1154 was signed into law by the governor - the "Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act of 2010." It includes some major changes to the criminal law in S.C., it is long and detailed (my printout is 94 pages long), and it is a must-read for anyone practicing criminal defense in the state.
The new law includes many changes in sentencing, some that benefit defendants and some that do not. It includes a "savings clause," which purports to limit the application of the new statutes to offenses committed after June 2. I've done some research on this, and the case law in South Carolina clearly says that defendants get the benefit of a change in sentencing, in the absence of a statutory provision such as a savings clause - there is no case directly on point where a defendant sought the benefit of a statutory amendment but there is a savings clause in the amendment, so this question may be open for debate.
The stated purpose of the Act is to reduce recidivism and to reduce the non-violent prison population, although I'm not sure exactly how it will accomplish this, based on what I'm seeing in it.
It is the intent of the General Assembly to preserve public safety, reduce crime, and use correctional resources most effectively. Currently, the South Carolina correctional system incarcerates people whose time in prison does not result in improved behavior and who often return to South Carolina communities and commit new crimes, or are returned to prison for violations of supervision requirements. It is, therefore, the purpose of this act to reduce recidivism, provide fair and effective sentencing option, employ evidence-based practices for smarter use of correctional funding, and improve public safety.
We'll see.
Comments
I think the savings clause in S1154 has to be read in conjunction with Act's effective date to understand how it should be applied to pending cases that would have reduced sentences under the new law. The language applying Part II of the Act (which mostly deals with post-conviction matters) takes effect "January 1, 2011, for offenses occurring on or after that date" whereas Part I (which contains all of the sentence reductions) takes effect "upon signature of the Governor." This shows the legislature's intent that Part II should apply prospectively, but it intends Part I to apply to everything coming down the pipe before the bill was passed. I recently wrote a post about the confusion (shameless plug) which is a result of the legislature's attempt to craft a one-size-fits-all savings clause that it has tacked onto a bunch of bills that have been drafted lately.
Posted by: Stuart Sarratt | July 15, 2010 8:52 PM
The legislature intended the sentencing amendments to apply only to cases after the governor's signature, according to people who were there.
I'd like to see the courts give all defendants with pending cases the benefit of the change in the law, and I think some judges may, regardless of the saving clause, but I don't think that was the intent of the legislature.
Posted by: BFrederick | July 15, 2010 9:24 PM
Well I certainly wasn't there, but if that's what they intended I think they should have made the effective date "upon signature of the Governor for offenses occurring on or after that date." I've seen that in other bills, but I don't know why they would leave it out of this one. Perhaps they thought the savings clause was broad enough to cover it. Strange.
Posted by: Stuart Sarratt | July 15, 2010 10:56 PM
I read the act and I have no clue on how it affects my husband or if it doesn't. He was incarcerated January 2010. I hope it does.
Posted by: AMBLavington | January 5, 2011 2:32 PM