Did a third shoplifting offense go to South Carolina general sessions court regardless of the stolen goods’ value in 1995?

Plain-English summary

Rock Hill’s city solicitor asked whether a 1995 change to the repeat-property-offense statute shifted shoplifting cases out of municipal court when the merchandise value was low. Assistant Attorney General Charles Richardson answered yes: a person arrested for a third or later shoplifting offense would be tried in general sessions court regardless of the dollar amount.

The letter contrasted ordinary low-value shoplifting, which the statute then classified as a misdemeanor, with the amended rule prescribing Class E felony punishment on a third or later qualifying property offense. It tied municipal courts’ criminal jurisdiction to magistrates’ jurisdiction and treated the felony case as falling exclusively within general sessions jurisdiction. This was an informal opinion, not a court ruling.

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.

Historical summary

Municipal prosecutors and courts

Under the 1995 amendment as Richardson read it, a third or later shoplifting charge went to general sessions even when the merchandise value would otherwise put an ordinary shoplifting case within lower-court jurisdiction.

People facing a repeat shoplifting charge

The answer turned on the offense count rather than the value alone. The letter said punishment on conviction would follow the repeat-offense provision’s Class E felony rule.

Common questions

Did a low dollar value keep a third shoplifting case in municipal court? No. Richardson said the third or later case belonged in general sessions court regardless of the goods’ value.

Why could municipal court hear an ordinary low-value case? The letter said low-value shoplifting was then a misdemeanor within magistrates’ jurisdiction, which municipal courts shared under §14-25-45.

What punishment did the 1995 amendment prescribe for qualifying repeat offenses? The letter described Class E felony punishment on conviction of a third or later offense whose imprisonment term depended on property value.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied Act No. 7 of 1995’s amendment to §16-1-57 alongside the statutes governing shoplifting classification, felony punishment, magistrates’ criminal jurisdiction and municipal-court jurisdiction. Richardson explicitly described it as an informal office opinion that the Attorney General had not personally reviewed or formally published.

Citations and references

• §16-1-57: repeat-property-offense amendment at issue.
• §22-3-550: magistrates’ criminal-jurisdiction limit quoted in the letter.
• §14-25-45: municipal court’s jurisdiction tied to magistrates’ jurisdiction.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-1-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995may1matlock.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON

ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 1, 1995

Joe Matlock, City Solicitor
Rock Hill Municipal Court
Post Office Box 10984
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29731-0984
Re:

Request for Opinion Section 16-1-57 S.C. Code

Dear Mr. Matlock:
In a letter to this Off ice you referenced that pursuant to Act No. 7 of 1995, S. C. Code Ann. §16-1-57 (Supp. 1994) has been amended to read:
[a] person convicted of an offense for which the term of imprisonment is contingent upon the value of the property involved must, upon conviction for a third or subsequent offense, be punished as prescribed for a Class E felony. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §16-l-20(A)(5) (Supp. 1994), a person convicted of a Class E felony must be imprisoned for not more than ten years. A Class E felony is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of general sessions. See: s.c. Code Ann. §22-3-550 (Supp. 1994) (general limit of criminal jurisdiction of a magistrate's court to an offense where the fine does not exceed five hundred dollars or the term of imprisonment does not exceed thirty days); South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section II (authorizes specific grant of jurisdiction to a magistrate's court for specific offenses).

s.c. Code Ann. §16-13-llO(B)(l) (Supp. 1994) provides that a defendant convicted of shoplifting where the value of the shoplifted merchandise is one thousand dollars or less is guilty o.f a misdemeanor. By such provision, such misdemeanor is within the jurisdiction of a magistrate's court. Pursuant to s.c. Code Ann. RE!l-HH::RT (', DE'-:SlS Bt 'JLDl'."G

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHO~E: 803- i34-1970

•

FACS!1'1lLE: 803<253-62S_1

Mr. Matlock
Page 2
May 1, 1995
§14-25-45 (Supp. 1964) a municipal court has " all such powers, duties and jurisdiction in criminal cases made under state law and conferred upon magistrates." You questioned whether the change provided by §16-1-57 as amended applies to shoplifting cases formerly within the municipal court's jurisdiction. If so, does the jurisdiction of shoplifting, third offense or subsequent, now revert to general sessions court regardless of the dollar amount. Pursuant to the provisions of §16-1-57 set forth above, an individual arrested for third offense or subsequent shoplifting would be tried in the general sessions court regardless of the dollar amount of the goods taken. Upon conviction, the defendant would be sentenced pursuant to §16-l-20(A). This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the

• position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question
  asked.
  It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General, nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. If there are any questions, please advise. With kind regards, I am

m;;;:i,taJ~
Charles H. Richardson
Assistant Attorney General

CHR/fg