## Facts

- Clarence B. Harper was charged in North Charleston municipal court with simple possession of marijuana (less than 28 grams) or hashish (10 grams or less) under North Charleston City Code § 13-3.
- City Code § 13-3 made the offense a misdemeanor and required that anyone convicted “shall be sentenced to thirty (30) days in jail,” leaving no sentencing choice to the municipal judge.
- Harper was convicted in municipal court and received the ordinance’s required 30-day jail sentence.
- Harper appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the ordinance’s mandatory minimum sentence conflicted with state law and was unconstitutional.
- The state statute addressing the same conduct, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(c), (d) (1976), classified possession of 28 grams or less of marijuana (or 10 grams or less of hashish) as a misdemeanor and authorized punishment of either (1) imprisonment for a term not to exceed 30 days or (2) a fine of $100 to $200.
- The circuit court struck down the ordinance’s mandatory-sentence provision, finding it conflicted with the state statute and offended Article VIII, § 14 of the South Carolina Constitution; the circuit court also found a due process violation.
- The City of North Charleston appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, arguing there was no conflict because the ordinance’s 30-day jail term fell within the state statute’s maximum.

## Issues

1. Whether North Charleston City Code § 13-3, which mandates a 30-day jail sentence for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana or hashish, conflicts with S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(c), (d), which authorizes either a fine or up to 30 days’ imprisonment.
2. Whether the ordinance is invalid under Article VIII, § 14 of the South Carolina Constitution because it sets a criminal penalty inconsistent with the General Assembly’s sentencing scheme.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court’s order.
- The Court held City Code § 13-3 invalid because it conflicted with the state statute by removing sentencing options the legislature authorized, including the judge’s ability to impose a fine instead of jail and to impose less than 30 days’ incarceration.
- Because the conflict with state law and Article VIII, § 14 resolved the case, the Court did not rely on the circuit court’s due process ruling to affirm.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal ordinance that is inconsistent with or in conflict with a state statute on the same subject is void.
- When the General Assembly creates a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to choose among authorized penalties (such as a fine or incarceration up to a stated maximum), a municipality may not replace that scheme with a mandatory penalty that eliminates those choices.
- An ordinance can conflict with state law even if its required punishment falls within the state statute’s outer limit; taking away legislatively granted sentencing discretion is a substantive conflict.
- Article VIII, § 14 of the South Carolina Constitution bars local enactments in areas reserved to the General Assembly when the local law is inconsistent with state law, including local penalties that alter state criminal sentencing options.

## Conclusion

In City of North Charleston v. Harper, the South Carolina Supreme Court held North Charleston City Code § 13-3 invalid because its mandatory 30-day jail sentence for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana or hashish conflicted with S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(c), (d), which permits either a fine or up to 30 days’ imprisonment, and the ordinance therefore violated Article VIII, § 14 by stripping judges of sentencing discretion authorized by the General Assembly.


City of North Charleston v. Harper, 410 S.E.2d 569, 306 S.C. 153 (1991)