Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-062 - State v. Oakman

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.

Sheldon Oakman, Jr., Appellant.


Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-062  
Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed February 8, 2012


AFFIRMED


Julie Martino Thames, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant  Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Sheldon Oakman Jr. appeals his thirty year sentence for kidnapping, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion because similarly situated co-defendants were sentenced to seventeen years' imprisonment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Follin, 352 S.C. 235, 257, 573 S.E.2d 812, 824 (Ct. App. 2002) ("[W]hen the record clearly reflects an appropriate basis for a disparate sentence, the [circuit court] may impose a different sentence on a co-defendant in a criminal trial."); Brooks v. State, 325 S.C. 269, 271-72, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997) ("A [circuit court] is allowed broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits.  A sentence is not excessive if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of prejudice against a defendant." (citations omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-910 (2003) ("Whoever shall unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct or carry away any other person by any means whatsoever without authority of law . . . is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for a period not to exceed thirty years . . . .").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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