Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-347 - State v. Golson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Stanley Golson, Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-347 
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 6, 2010


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Stanley Golson was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a school.  The trial court sentenced Golson to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under the recidivist statute.  Golson appeals, arguing his sentence violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-45(B)(1) (2003) (stating "upon a conviction for a serious offense . . . a person must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole if that person has two or more prior convictions for . . . a serious offense"); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-45(C)(2)(b) (Supp. 2009) (defining "trafficking in ice, crank, or crack cocaine" and "distribut[ing], sell[ing], manufactur[ing], or possess[ing] with intent to distribute controlled substances within proximity of school" as serious offenses); State v. Williams, 380 S.C. 336, 346, 669 S.E.2d 640, 646 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The cruel and unusual punishment clause requires that the duration of a sentence not be grossly disproportionate with the severity of the crime."); Id. at 347-48, 669 S.E.2d at 646 ("Our courts have also determined stiff penalties for drug crimes do not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."); State v. Brannon, 341 S.C. 271, 281, 533 S.E.2d 345, 350 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding the enhanced penalty scheme for serious offenses is not unconstitutional). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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