Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-244 - State v. Payton

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.

Eugene Payton, Appellant.


Appeal From Berkeley County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-244  
Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 24, 2011


AFFIRMED


Grover C. Seaton, III, of Moncks Corner, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William Blitch, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Eugene Payton appeals his convictions for one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and one count of committing a lewd act on a minor, arguing the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges against him because the statutes he was prosecuted under do not comport with Article III of the South Carolina Constitution.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Smith, 181 S.C. 485, 485, 188 S.E. 132, 132-33 (1936) (holding the statute raising the age of consent to sixteen years was not unconstitutional as conflicting with the constitutional provision fixing the age of consent at fourteen years because the constitutional provision does not create a criminal offense but operates only on the question of consent, creating a new rule of evidence in the proof of consent and declaring certain persons incapable of consenting).

AFFIRMED.   

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


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