Fewell v. State, No. 20234
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | LEWIS |
| Citation | 225 S.E.2d 853,267 S.C. 17 |
| Parties | Ricky FEWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina and William D. Leeke, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 20234 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1976 |
Page 853
v.
STATE of South Carolina and William D. Leeke, Director,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents.
Page 854
[267 S.C. 19] W. Clarkson McDow, Jr., Rock Hill, and Roy T. Stuckey, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and Stephen T. Savitz, Columbia, for respondents.
[267 S.C. 20] LEWIS, Chief Justice:
Appellant, a first offender, was convicted and sentenced for violation of the South Carolina law regulating controlled substances and dangerous drugs (Code Supplement, Section 32--1510.49). He seeks, in his application for post conviction relief, to have his sentence set aside and that the cause be remanded for resentencing, on the ground that the sentence imposed was greater than that permitted by statute for the offense of which he was convicted. This appeal is from an order of the lower court denying the relief sought.
A jury returned a verdict of 'guilty' against appellant under an indictment charging that he
'did wilfully and unlawfully have in his possession sixty (60) full hits of LSD and some broken hits in violation of S.C. Dangerous Drugs and Narcotics Act.'
Page 855
The trial judge construed the verdict as finding appellant guilty of possession of LSD with intent to distribute and imposed a sentence of ten (10) years under Code Supplement, Section 32--1510.49(b)(1) which sets the sentence for a first offense thereunder at 'not more than fifteen years or a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars, or both.' Appellant contends, however, that he was indicted and convicted for the lesser offense of simple possession of LSD under Code Supplement, Section 32--1510.49(c&d) which carries a sentence for the first offense of not more than two years or a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
We agree with appellant that the above quoted language from the indictment did not charge him with possession of LSD with intent to distribute but rather with the lesser offense of possession. A necessary element of the offense for which appellant was sentenced is that the person charged have possession 'with intent to . . . [267 S.C. 21] distribute . . . a controlled substance.' Code Supplement, Section 32--1510.49(a)(1).
Nowhere in the indictment is the charge of possession 'with intent to distribute' set forth in the language of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welch v. Whitaker, No. 0202
...to the cause of the injury sustained by Welch. Without it, the case rested on "mere speculation or conjecture" [ Armstrong v. Weiland, 225 S.E.2d at 853] and was not submissible to the jury on that Regarding the issue as to the skill employed by Whitaker in grinding Welch's eye, the testimo......
-
Phillips v. Morbark, Inc., C.A. No. 9:05-2446-PMD.
...his professional opinion the injuries complained of [m]ost probably resulted from the alleged negligence of the defendant. Id. at 16, 225 S.E.2d at 853. In this case, as Plaintiff does not rely on medical experts to establish causation, Plaintiff Page 465 submit evidence showing the defects......
-
State v. Bendoly, No. 20930
...upon their conviction for violating Section 16-17-410 is manifest, and the error is properly conceded by the State. Fewell v. State, 267 S.C. 17, 225 S.E.2d 853 Fourth, appellants contend the trial judge erred by admitting into evidence the contents of the automobile occupied by appellants ......
-
Billups v. Leliuga, No. 1555
...proximate cause, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to put forth some evidence which rises above mere speculation or conjecture. Id. 225 S.E.2d at 853. We first note the record before us appears to contain sufficient non-expert opinion evidence to demonstrate the causal connection between t......
-
Welch v. Whitaker, No. 0202
...to the cause of the injury sustained by Welch. Without it, the case rested on "mere speculation or conjecture" [ Armstrong v. Weiland, 225 S.E.2d at 853] and was not submissible to the jury on that Regarding the issue as to the skill employed by Whitaker in grinding Welch's eye, the testimo......
-
Phillips v. Morbark, Inc., C.A. No. 9:05-2446-PMD.
...his professional opinion the injuries complained of [m]ost probably resulted from the alleged negligence of the defendant. Id. at 16, 225 S.E.2d at 853. In this case, as Plaintiff does not rely on medical experts to establish causation, Plaintiff Page 465 submit evidence showing the defects......
-
State v. Bendoly, No. 20930
...upon their conviction for violating Section 16-17-410 is manifest, and the error is properly conceded by the State. Fewell v. State, 267 S.C. 17, 225 S.E.2d 853 Fourth, appellants contend the trial judge erred by admitting into evidence the contents of the automobile occupied by appellants ......
-
Billups v. Leliuga, No. 1555
...proximate cause, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to put forth some evidence which rises above mere speculation or conjecture. Id. 225 S.E.2d at 853. We first note the record before us appears to contain sufficient non-expert opinion evidence to demonstrate the causal connection between t......