Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-470 - State v. Moultrie, Jeremiah

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.

Jeremiah Prince Moultrie, Appellant.


Appeal From Richland County
J. C. "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-470
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October 28, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jeremiah Prince Moultrie appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, second offense.  We affirm.[1]    

In 2006, Moultrie was convicted of failure to register, first offense, and indecent exposure.  Prior to Moultrie's release from prison, a caseworker for the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) verbally informed Moultrie that he must register with the Sheriff's Department in the county where he would live within twenty-four hours of his release.  The caseworker also provided Moultrie with the standard sex offender registration paperwork.  It provided, "Persons being released from the [Department] . . . at the completion of their sentence . . . MUST register with the Sheriff of the county in which he intends to reside within one (1) business day of his sentencing." 

Moultrie argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because he did not receive adequate written notice regarding the sex offender registry requirements. Specifically, Moultrie notes the paperwork provided by his caseworker was inadequate because it incorrectly provided that he was required to register within one business day of his sentencing.  We disagree.

Section 23-3-440(1) of the South Carolina Code (2007) requires the Department to "provide verbal and written notification to the offender that he must register with the sheriff of the county in which he intends to reside within one business day of his release."  (emphases added).    Further, section 23-3-480(A) of the South Carolina Code (2007) states a person will have actual notice of the duty to register if arrested on charges of failure to register. 

Here, Moultrie had actual notice of his duty to register because he was convicted of failure to register in 2006.  Moreover, Moultrie received both written and verbal notice of the registration requirement.  Moultrie's caseworker testified he verbally informed Moultrie of this registration requirement prior to his release.  Furthermore, the caseworker provided Moultrie with paperwork, which set forth the registration requirements.  Although the paperwork contained a scrivener's error regarding the time in which Moultrie was required to register, the paperwork did notify Moultrie he was required to register.  Furthermore, the paperwork referenced section 23-3-440.  

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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