Bordeaux v. State

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed a post-conviction relief action involving an alleged conflict between Bordeaux’s oral plea and sentencing colloquy and the written sentencing sheets. The court held that the oral pronouncement was unambiguous, the written sentencing sheets were ambiguous, and the oral pronouncement controlled. It affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that Bordeaux pleaded guilty to and was properly sentenced for two counts of first-degree burglary.

Holdings

1. An unambiguous sentencing pronouncement controls over an ambiguous oral or written sentence, provided that giving effect to the unambiguous pronouncement does not result in an illegal sentence or deprive the defendant of constitutional rights.
2. Bordeaux pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree burglary and was properly sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment pursuant to his negotiated plea agreement; the sentence was not illegal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by remanding for reconsideration of the legality of Bordeaux's first degree burglary convictions and sentences based on inconsistencies between the unambiguous plea and oral sentencing transcript and the written sentencing sheets.
2. Whether an unambiguous oral sentencing pronouncement controls over an ambiguous written sentencing pronouncement when the resulting sentence is lawful and does not deprive the defendant of constitutional rights.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded