Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2025

Steven Levon Williams v. State

Steven Levon Williams v. State
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Decided December 10, 2025

Steven Levon Williams v. State

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Steven Levon Williams, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000248

Appeal From Greenville County R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-404 Submitted October 1, 2025 – Filed December 10, 2025

VACATED IN PART

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Kaylee Christene Kemp, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari as to Question I and grant the petition as to Question II, dispense with further briefing, and vacate Petitioner's five-year sentence for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

We hold Petitioner's concurrent five-year sentence for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime was improper because Petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for armed robbery. Accordingly, we vacate Petitioner's five-year sentence for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. See S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-490(A) (2015) (providing the sentence of five years' imprisonment for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime does not apply in cases when a life sentence without parole is imposed for the violent crime); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-60 (Supp. 2025) (defining armed robbery as a violent crime under South Carolina law).

VACATED IN PART. 1 KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.