Bordeaux v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Criminal Law

Criminal LawPost-Conviction ReliefSentencingillegal sentencesentencing ambiguityoral pronouncementwritten sentencing sheetplea colloquy

Facts

Bordeaux entered a negotiated plea capped at twenty-five years and pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery and two counts of burglary. During the plea and sentencing colloquy, he repeatedly acknowledged that he was pleading guilty to two counts of first degree burglary, and the trial judge sentenced him on those counts to twenty-five years, suspended upon service of twenty years with probation. The written sentencing sheets, however, referred to second degree burglary, used the corresponding code and statute, but also stated he pled guilty "as indicted" and that the sentence followed the plea colloquy. Bordeaux later argued in PCR that his sentence was illegal because the sheets showed second degree burglary, for which twenty-five years would exceed the statutory maximum.

Issue

When the oral plea and sentencing record unambiguously shows a defendant pled guilty to and was sentenced for first degree burglary, but the written sentencing sheets ambiguously refer to second degree burglary, which controls in determining whether the sentence is lawful? Did the Court of Appeals err by remanding instead of deciding the legality of the sentence as a matter of law?

Rule

Whether a sentencing transcript or sentencing sheet is ambiguous, and whether a PCR applicant is serving an illegal sentence, are questions of law reviewed de novo. A sentence is ambiguous if, under the totality of the circumstances, its pronouncement is susceptible of differing interpretations. An unambiguous sentencing pronouncement controls over an ambiguous oral or written sentence, so long as enforcing it does not result in an illegal sentence or deprive the defendant of constitutional rights.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbia, Malik Turner entered a negotiated guilty plea capped at 18 years. During the plea hearing, the judge and Malik repeatedly stated he was pleading guilty to aggravated assault, and the judge orally imposed 18 years for that offense. The written sentencing sheet, however, lists simple assault and cites the simple-assault statute, but it also says Malik was convicted "as charged in the indictment," and the indictment charged aggravated assault.

If Malik later claims his 18-year sentence is illegal because the written sheet names simple assault, how should a reviewing court rule?

Explanation. A sentencing pronouncement is ambiguous if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is susceptible of differing interpretations. An unambiguous sentencing pronouncement controls over an ambiguous oral or written sentence so long as enforcing it does not create an illegal sentence or violate constitutional rights. Here, the oral plea and sentencing record clearly identifies aggravated assault, while the written sheet points in conflicting directions by naming simple assault but also stating conviction as charged in the indictment. Because the oral pronouncement is unambiguous and lawful, it controls.