Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-638 - In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Jerry F. Powell

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Jerry F. Powell, Appellant.


Appeal From Anderson County
 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-638
Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed November 13, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, Assistant Attorney General R. Westmoreland Clarkson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jerry F. Powell appeals his commitment under the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act (the Act).  Powell argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to follow procedure in the Act.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code § 44-48-80(A) (Supp. 2007) (“If the court determines that probable cause exists to believe that the person is a sexually violent predator, the person must be taken into custody if he is not already confined in a secure facility.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-80(B) (Supp. 2007) (“This [probable cause] hearing must be held within seventy-two hours after a person is taken into custody pursuant to subsection (A).”) (emphasis added.); see also Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) (“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature . . . . Where the statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning.”).  

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.