Did South Carolina repeal the special distribution rules for certain drug fines in 1994?

Official title

Asking whether S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(d) (i) and (ii) has been repealed by Section 36 of Act No. 497 of 1994.

Requester

Lieutenant Keith Lewis, Fairfield County Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force

Plain-English summary

A drug task force officer asked whether Section 36 of a 1994 act had repealed two provisions directing how fines from specified controlled-substance offenses were distributed. The 1995 informal opinion concluded that the legislature had repealed those distribution clauses. It pointed to the bill history, the new distribution scheme, and the absence of the old clauses from the act’s listed exceptions.

The letter said the provisions’ continued appearance in an unofficial 1994 Code supplement was probably a printer’s error. Its conclusion concerned the older fine-distribution instructions, rather than the underlying drug offenses.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Which rules did the letter say were repealed?
A: It addressed the former clauses directing distribution of fines from certain controlled-substance convictions.

Q: Why did the unofficial code supplement still show them? A: The opinion said their inclusion was probably a printing error and that the enacted act controlled.

Q: Did the letter say the drug offenses themselves were repealed? A: No. Its analysis concerned how the related fines were distributed.

Background and statutory framework

The letter reviewed Section 36 of Act No. 497 of 1994, which changed court assessment and revenue distribution methods. It said the old distribution clauses were struck in bill versions and were not preserved among exceptions to the new procedure. The conclusion contains an inconsistent code-section number; the request and analysis identify the provision as § 44-53-370(d) (3).

Citations and references

• § 44-53-370(d) (3) (i) and (ii), as identified in the request and footnote
• Section 36 of Act No. 497 of 1994

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-18-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug18lewis.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 18, 1995

I
I

Lieutenant Keith Lewis
Fairfield County Multijurisdictional
Drug Task Force
P. 0. Drawer 1115
Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180

Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Lieutenant Lewis:
You have asked whether S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(d) (3) (i) and (ii) has been repealed by Section 36 of Act No. 497 of 1994. It is my understanding that, by virtue of the 1994 Act, the General Assembly repealed this provision. A Memorandum from the South Carolina Court Administration, dated November 18, 1994, describes the purpose of Act No. 497, Section 36:
[d]uring the recent legislative session [1994], the
General Assembly enacted Section 36 of the Permanent
Provisions to the 1994-95 Appropriations Act which
completely changes the method of calculating the assessments to be added to fines as well as the way the revenue generated by the courts is distributed. The provisions of Section 36 are effective January 1, 1995 and apply in all cases disposed of on or after January I. Section 36 specifically amended § 44-53-370(d) (3), which sets forth the penalties for the possession of specified amounts of certain controlled substances including cocaine, marijuana and LSD, and had previously provided the specific manner in which fines are

REMBERT

c. DENNIS Bt ILDl\G

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

Coll.MBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Lieutenant Keith Lewis
Page 2
August 18, 1995
to be distributed. 1 The specific amendments to § 44-53-370(d) (3) are set forth in Subsections M and N of Act No. 497.

I
I

While the amendments are cumbersome and could easily have been worded with greater precision, the effect is clear. In virtually every version of the Bill as it wound its way through the legislative process, subsections (d) (3) (i) and (ii) were struck through as deleted. See s;&, Senate Finance Committee version; H.4659 of 1994. Additionally, Subsection (A) of Section 36 of Act No. 497 specifies certain exceptions to the new procedure for distribution, but does not enumerate § 44-53-370(d) (3) (i) and (ii). Finally, I am advised that the insertion of Subsections (d) (3) (i) and (ii) in the 1994 Code Supplement, which, of course, is unofficial and yields to the text of the Act itself, was probably the result of a printer's error. Apparently, the Legislature considered subsections (i) and (ii) a part of the "first paragraph" of (d) (3), which was amended by Subsection M of Section 36. That such is the case is confirmed by the fact that subsections (i) and (ii) were the only parts of the amended version of the "first paragraph" of § 44-53-470(d) (3) as contained in Subsection M that changed in any way. The Legislature is not deemed to do a futile thing. Thus, necessarily those portions of the "first paragraph" of (d) (3) which the Legislature meant to amend were subsections (i) and (ii), by striking those specific provisions. Accordingly, it is evident that the General Assembly repealed § 44-53-470(d) (3) (i) and (ii) with the enactment of Act No. 497, Section 36 of 1994.

1

Section 44-53-370(d) (3) (i) and (ii) provides that fines for the offenses enunciated therein shall be distributed as follows: For a first offense, the first one hundred dollars must be (i) distributed pursuant to the provisions of Section 44-53-580 and all monies in excess of that amount must be distributed to the unit of government whose law enforcement officers initiated the investigation which resulted in the conviction.

(ii)
For a second or subsequent offense, the first two
hundred dollars must be distributed pursuant to the provision of Section 44-53-580 and all monies in excess of that amount must be distributed to the unit of government whose law enforcement officers initiated the investigation which resulted in the conviction.

Lieutenant Keith Lewis
Page 3
August 18, 1995
This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am Very truly yours,

I
I

I#-

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

RDC/an