A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 1-7-335 SO AS TO REQUIRE CIRCUIT SOLICITORS TO PREPARE COST-ANALYSIS SENTENCING REPORTS REGARDING SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO SENTENCING OF OFFENDERS CONVICTED OF OR WHO PLEAD GUILTY TO GENERAL SESSIONS COURT OFFENSES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES SHALL PROVIDE THE CURRENT COSTS OF INCARCERATION AND PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION TO THE PROSECUTION COORDINATION COMMISSION, RESPECTIVELY, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROSECUTION COORDINATION COMMISSION SHALL PROVIDE THE UPDATED COSTS TO EACH CIRCUIT SOLICITOR WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME.
Summary
H3062 would add a new section to the South Carolina Code requiring each circuit solicitor, or a designee, to prepare a written cost-analysis sentencing report before sentencing in every general sessions court case where the defendant is convicted, pleads guilty, or pleads nolo contendere. The report must be submitted to the court and included in the record, and it must identify the cost of incarceration, probation, and community supervision associated with the solicitor’s sentencing recommendation, as appropriate.
The bill also creates an annual update process for those cost figures. By January 15 each year, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services must provide the prior year’s costs to the Prosecution Coordination Commission, which must then distribute the updated numbers to each circuit solicitor within ten days. The act would take effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill would impose a new procedural requirement on sentencing in general sessions court by making cost information part of the sentencing record and by requiring prosecutors to use updated state-reported incarceration and supervision costs in sentencing recommendations. It would not directly change sentencing ranges or criminal penalties, but it would affect how sentencing recommendations are prepared and documented, and it would create ongoing reporting duties for the Department of Corrections, the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, and the Prosecution Coordination Commission.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as an administrative and transparency-oriented sentencing reform rather than a controversial substantive criminal-law change. The overall tone of the proposal suggests support for more informed sentencing decisions and better cost awareness in the criminal justice system. No formal vote history or transcript is available here to indicate organized opposition or support.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is whether requiring cost-analysis reports could influence prosecutorial sentencing recommendations or judicial decision-making in a way that is seen as either improving accountability or adding an extra procedural burden. Some may view the bill as a useful tool for fiscal transparency and sentencing policy, while others may question the practicality of preparing individualized cost reports in every qualifying case and the administrative burden on solicitors and state agencies. No specific stakeholder objections or endorsements are provided in the available materials.
Providing that jail credit when consecutive sentences are imposed shall not apply to more than one case, creating special sentencing rules when a felony is committed by certain offenders while on probation, parole or postrelease supervision for a prior felony and requiring secured minimum bonds for certain defendants who commit a new felony while on probation, parole, postrelease supervision or bond for a prior felony unless the court makes certain findings.