In re Jason T., No. 3164.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHEARN, Chief
Citation340 S.C. 455,531 S.E.2d 544
Docket NumberNo. 3164.
Decision Date22 May 2000
PartiesIn the Interest of JASON T., a minor under the age of seventeen (17), Appellant.

340 S.C. 455
531 S.E.2d 544

In the Interest of JASON T., a minor under the age of seventeen (17), Appellant

No. 3164.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted April 10, 2000.

Decided May 22, 2000.


340 S.C. 456
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of SC Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Holman C. Gossett, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

340 S.C. 457
HEARN, Chief Judge

Jason T. appeals, asserting the family court was without jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to receiving stolen goods. We agree and vacate.1

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

While outside his school's gym, Jason observed another juvenile stealing a coat and jewelry from a car. The other juvenile gave Jason the coat, presumably to ensure his silence. Jason was later seen wearing the coat.

An assistant solicitor filed a juvenile petition charging Jason with petit larceny. When Jason appeared before the family court, however, he pled guilty to receiving stolen goods.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jason's appellate counsel filed an appeal and a petition to be relieved as counsel. This court denied counsel's petition to be relieved and ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept Jason's guilty plea.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Jason contends the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea and adjudicate him delinquent on the charge of receiving stolen goods when the juvenile petition charged him with petit larceny. We agree.2

In a court of general sessions,3 with the exception of certain minor offenses, the circuit court lacks subject matter

340 S.C. 458
jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea unless there is an indictment sufficiently stating the offense, there is a waiver of indictment, or the charge pled to is a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the indictment. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362, 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998). Any waiver of presentment must be in writing. See Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982); see also S.C.Code Ann. §§ 17-23-130 to -140 (1985)

For an indictment to be valid, it must state the offense with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer. Carter, 329 S.C. at 362-3, 495 S.E.2d at 777. This requirement that a defendant receive notice of the charges against him is rooted in due process. See State v. Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 456, 290 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1982), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 69 n. 5, 406 S.E.2d 315, 329 n. 5 (1991).

These same due process concerns extend to juvenile proceedings. Our supreme court has held that the fairness and due process requirements that ensure an adult criminal defendant will receive sufficient notice of the charges against him also apply to juvenile matters. In re Corey B., 291 S.C. 108, 109-10, 352 S.E.2d 470 (1987) (holding a juvenile cannot be found...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • In re Kevin S., No. B164799
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2003
    ...777 So.2d 1100, 1101; In re M.F. (2000) 315 Ill.App.3d 641, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d 171, 173; In re Jason T. (App.2000) 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544, 545; In re J.A.H. (Tex.App.1999) 996 S.W.2d 933, 934; D.L.G. v. State (Fla.App.1997) 701 So.2d 379, 380; State v. Hairston (1997) 133 Wa......
  • State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...348 S.C. 611, 560 S.E.2d 436 (Ct.App.2002). 42. State v. Hamilton, 344 S.C. 344, 543 S.E.2d 586 (Ct.App.2001). 43. In re Jason T., 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544 44. State v. Ervin, 333 S.C. 351, 510 S.E.2d 220 (Ct.App.1998). Justice PLEICONES dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I agree with ......
  • In re Kevin, B164799 (Cal. App. 11/6/2003), B164799.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2003
    ...859; F.W. v. State (Fla.App. 2001) 777 So.2d 1100, 1101; In re M.F. (Ill.App. 2000) 734 N.E.2d 171, 173; In re Jason T. (S.C.App. 2000) 531 S.E.2d 544, 545; In re J.A.H. (Tex.App. 1999) 996 S.W.2d 933, 934; D.L.G. v. State (Fla.App. 1997) 701 So.2d 379, 380; State v. Hairston (Wash. 1997) 9......
  • In re Damion, 2005-UP-302
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 27, 2005
    ...affecting the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal); In the Interest of Jason T., 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544 (Ct. App. 2000) (extending the same due process analysis to juvenile proceedings as apply to adult criminal defendants in g......
4 cases
  • In re Kevin S., No. B164799
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2003
    ...777 So.2d 1100, 1101; In re M.F. (2000) 315 Ill.App.3d 641, 248 Ill.Dec. 463, 734 N.E.2d 171, 173; In re Jason T. (App.2000) 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544, 545; In re J.A.H. (Tex.App.1999) 996 S.W.2d 933, 934; D.L.G. v. State (Fla.App.1997) 701 So.2d 379, 380; State v. Hairston (1997) 133 Wa......
  • State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...348 S.C. 611, 560 S.E.2d 436 (Ct.App.2002). 42. State v. Hamilton, 344 S.C. 344, 543 S.E.2d 586 (Ct.App.2001). 43. In re Jason T., 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544 44. State v. Ervin, 333 S.C. 351, 510 S.E.2d 220 (Ct.App.1998). Justice PLEICONES dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I agree with ......
  • In re Kevin, B164799 (Cal. App. 11/6/2003), B164799.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2003
    ...859; F.W. v. State (Fla.App. 2001) 777 So.2d 1100, 1101; In re M.F. (Ill.App. 2000) 734 N.E.2d 171, 173; In re Jason T. (S.C.App. 2000) 531 S.E.2d 544, 545; In re J.A.H. (Tex.App. 1999) 996 S.W.2d 933, 934; D.L.G. v. State (Fla.App. 1997) 701 So.2d 379, 380; State v. Hairston (Wash. 1997) 9......
  • In re Damion, 2005-UP-302
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 27, 2005
    ...affecting the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal); In the Interest of Jason T., 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544 (Ct. App. 2000) (extending the same due process analysis to juvenile proceedings as apply to adult criminal defendants in g......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT