Opinion
2017-UP-455
12-06-2017
The State, Appellant, v. Arthur M. Field, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2015-000210
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Samuel Creighton Waters, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Appellant. James Todd Rutherford, of The Rutherford Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
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.
Submitted October 1, 2017
Appeal From State Grand Jury J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge AFFIRMED
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Samuel Creighton Waters, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Appellant.
James Todd Rutherford, of The Rutherford Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
The State appeals an order denying its motion to reconsider Arthur M. Field's sentencing. The State contends Field improperly received credit for pre-trial time during which he was on GPS monitoring but not on home confinement. We affirm.
Field was placed on home confinement and GPS monitoring when he was released on bond. After Field moved to have both restrictions removed, the presiding circuit court judge ruled from the bench she would "take the house arrest off so he can go" but would "leave the bracelet on." The written order issued after the hearing, however, specified "home confinement except to meet with attorney, doctor visit, religious service." Notwithstanding the circuit court judge's verbal comments, the written order controls. See First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Hitman, Inc., 308 S.C. 421, 422, 418 S.E.2d 545, 545 (1992) ("[A] judge is not bound by [a] prior oral ruling and may issue a written order which is in conflict with the oral ruling."). Therefore, we hold the credit Field received was for "time spent under monitored house arrest" pursuant to section 24-13-40 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2016).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.