State v. Ontavious Derenta Plumer

                   THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                        In The Supreme Court

           The State, Respondent-Petitioner,

           v.

           Ontavious Derenta Plumer, Petitioner-Respondent.

           Appellate Case No. 2021-000643



       ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS


                      Appeal from Greenwood County
                    Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge


                            Opinion No. 28152
                  Heard March 7, 2023 – Filed April 26, 2023


                        AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED


           E. Charles Grose Jr., of The Grose Law Firm, LLC, of
           Greenwood, for Petitioner-Respondent.

           Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
           Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both
           of Columbia, and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of
           Greenwood, all for Respondent-Petitioner.


JUSTICE JAMES: Ontavious Derenta Plumer shot and wounded Oshamar Wells
(Victim) during an aborted drug deal. Plumer was convicted of attempted murder
and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. He was
sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) 1 for attempted murder and to a concurrent
five-year term on the weapon charge. The court of appeals affirmed Plumer's
convictions but vacated the five-year weapon sentence. State v. Plumer, 

, 

 (Ct. App. 2021). We granted cross-petitions for certiorari and
address two issues in this opinion. First, we address Plumer's contention that the
court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on self-
defense. Second, we address the State's contention that even though the five-year
weapon sentence is prohibited by statute, that issue was not raised to the trial court
and is thus not preserved for appellate review. We affirm the court of appeals as
modified on both issues.

                                      Background

       The court of appeals' opinion presents the factual background of this case.
The following basic facts are sufficient for our review. The shooting occurred during
a drug deal in which Plumer and Jamel Brownlee planned to buy approximately
$3,600 worth of marijuana from Victim. The deal was convened in the kitchen of
Victim's cousin's house. Victim testified that instead of paying for the marijuana,
Plumer pulled out a pistol in an apparent attempt to rob Victim. Victim testified that
in response to Plumer displaying his pistol, Victim reached for a pistol he knew his
mother kept in a cabinet within arm's reach of the table. Both men began shooting
at one another, and both were wounded. Plumer was indicted for armed robbery,
attempted murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent
crime. The jury acquitted Plumer of armed robbery but found him guilty of the latter
two charges.




1
  Under South Carolina Code section 16-3-29, a person convicted of attempted
murder "must be imprisoned for not more than thirty years." (2015). However,
attempted murder is classified as a "most serious offense." 

-
45(C)(1) (2014 & Supp. 2022). A person convicted of two "most serious offenses"
must be sentenced to LWOP. 

(A)(1)(a) (2014). This
conviction was Plumer's second conviction for a most serious offense, a point which
Plumer does not contest. The solicitor has complete discretion on whether to seek
LWOP for a second most serious conviction. 

(G) (2014).
Notice of intent to seek LWOP must be given by the solicitor to the defendant and
his attorney "not less than ten days before trial." 

(H)
(2014). Plumer does not contend improper notice was given.
    I.   Self-Defense Instruction

       Our holding in State v. Williams, 

, 

 (2019), is
dispositive of the self-defense issue. 2 As we noted in Williams, one of the elements
of self-defense is that the defendant must have been without fault in bringing on the
difficulty. We held "intentionally bringing a loaded, unlawfully-possessed pistol to
an illegal drug transaction is 'calculated to produce a violent occasion[,]'" and a
person who does so cannot be without fault in bringing on the difficulty. 

,

. As was the case in Williams, Plumer unlawfully possessed the
firearm he employed during this illegal drug transaction. Plumer argues there is
evidence he was not aware the gathering in the kitchen was for an illegal drug deal.
We disagree. The only reasonable inference to be derived from the record is that
Plumer intentionally took a loaded firearm to what he knew would be an illegal drug
transaction. It matters not who drew his weapon first or who fired first. For the
reasons we expressed in Williams, Plumer was not entitled to a self-defense
instruction.

II.      Weapon Sentence
      A defendant who is convicted of possession of a weapon during the
commission of a violent crime faces a mandatory five-year sentence "in addition to
the punishment provided for the principal crime." 

(A)
(2015); see 

 (2015 & Supp. 2022) (defining attempted
murder as a violent crime). However, the "five-year sentence does not apply in cases
where . . . a life sentence without parole is imposed for the violent crime." 

(A).

       The State concedes Plumer's five-year weapon sentence is an illegal sentence3
because it is prohibited by subsection 16-23-490(A); however, the State contends
the issue is not preserved for appellate review because Plumer failed to raise the
illegality of the weapon sentence to the trial court. Plumer acknowledges he did not


2
 Plumer was tried in 2015, and this case was argued before the court of appeals in
2020. The State submitted Williams as a supplemental citation to the court of
appeals, but the court of appeals did not rely upon Williams in affirming Plumer's
conviction.
3
  For purposes of this case, we define an "illegal sentence" as a sentence in excess
of that permitted by law, even if there is no real threat of incarceration beyond the
legal sentence.
raise the issue to the trial court.

       In State v. Johnston, we corrected an illegal sentence even though the issue
was not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court. 

, 

 (1999). We noted the standard issue preservation rule but vacated the
illegal sentence because (1) the State conceded the sentence imposed was excessive
and (2) the defendant faced a "real threat" of remaining incarcerated beyond the legal
sentence. 

       On occasion, we encounter illegal sentences to which no objection was taken
in the trial court. In such cases, it is inefficient and a waste of judicial resources to
delay the inevitable by requiring the appellant to file a post-conviction relief action
or petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, we modify Johnston and hold that
when a trial court imposes what the State concedes is an illegal sentence, the
appellate court may correct that sentence on direct appeal or remand the issue to the
trial court even if the defendant did not object to the sentence at trial and even if
there is no real threat of incarceration beyond the limits of a legal sentence.
However, we do not agree with the court of appeals' conclusion that the correction
of the sentence is a function of "criminal equity." Plumer, 433 S.C. at 315, 857
S.E.2d at 803. "The general rule is well settled that equity has no criminal
jurisdiction . . . ." State ex rel. McLeod v. Holcomb, 

, 

 (1964); see Ezell v. Ritholz, 

, 

 (1938).
With that modification, we affirm the court of appeals on this issue.
                                      Conclusion
      Williams forbids a self-defense instruction under the facts of this case. We
therefore affirm as modified the court of appeals' decision on that issue. We affirm
the court of appeals as modified with regard to the illegal five-year weapon sentence
in accordance with our holding today.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW and HILL, JJ., concur.