765 S.E.2d 143
S.C.2014Background
- Bordeaux pleaded guilty pursuant to a capped plea agreement (max 25 years) to two counts of armed robbery and, as orally stated at plea and sentencing, two counts of first-degree burglary.
- The judge's oral plea colloquy repeatedly confirmed Bordeaux admitted to two counts of first-degree burglary and that his sentence followed the negotiated deal.
- The judge orally sentenced Bordeaux to 25 years on the burglary counts, with service of 20 years and 3 years probation on the balance.
- The written sentencing sheets, however, identified the burglary counts as "Burglary 2nd Degree," included the CDR code and second-degree statute, and one sheet showed "15" crossed out and replaced with "25."
- At PCR, Bordeaux argued the written sheets controlled and therefore his 25-year burglary sentence was illegal for second-degree burglary (15-year max); the PCR judge granted relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to assess the sentence lawfulness.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the plea colloquy or the written sentencing sheets control and whether Bordeaux’s 25-year sentence was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding to reconsider the lawfulness of Bordeaux's burglary convictions/sentences when written sentencing sheets conflicted with an unambiguous plea colloquy | Bordeaux: written sentencing sheets showing second-degree burglary control and render the 25-year sentence illegal (exceeds 2nd-degree max) | State: unambiguous oral plea colloquy and oral sentencing control over ambiguous written sheets; sentence lawful under plea agreement | The Court: oral plea colloquy and oral sentencing were unambiguous and control; written sheets were ambiguous; Bordeaux pleaded to first-degree burglary and 25-year sentence was lawful. Court of Appeals' remand reversed in part and affirmed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tant v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 408 S.C. 334, 759 S.E.2d 398 (2014) (explains when sentencing pronouncements are ambiguous and need totality-of-circumstances review)
- Boan v. State, 388 S.C. 272, 695 S.E.2d 850 (2010) (refuses to enforce an unambiguous written sentence that would deprive defendant of due process)
- Talley v. State, 371 S.C. 535, 640 S.E.2d 878 (2007) (review standard for legality of sentence in PCR proceedings)
- United States v. Stallone, 399 F.2d 415 (2d Cir. 1968) (uses totality of circumstances to determine if a sentencing pronouncement is ambiguous)