Johnson v. State, No. 24267
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 459 S.E.2d 840,319 S.C. 62 |
| Parties | Jessie Heyward JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 09 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 24267 |
Page 840
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decided July 3, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1995.
[319 S.C. 63] Asst. Appellate Defender Lisa T. Gregory, South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Deputy Atty. Gen. J. Emory Smith, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Teresa Nesbitt Cosby, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Teresa A. Knox, Columbia, for respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner was indicted for first degree burglary and grand larceny. He pled guilty to second degree burglary and grand larceny. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for burglary and ten years, concurrent, for grand larceny. No direct appeal was taken.
Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari from the denial, after a hearing, of his application for post-conviction relief. We grant certiorari, dispense with further briefing and vacate petitioner's conviction and sentence for grand larceny.
Petitioner maintains that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea to grand larceny. At the time of the incident in question,
Page 841
S.C. Code Ann. § 16-13-30 defined petit larceny as the taking or carrying away of goods valued at less [319 S.C. 64] than $200. This offense was considered a misdemeanor. In contrast, grand larceny involved the taking and carrying away of goods valued at $200 or more. 1The indictment purporting to charge petitioner with grand larceny alleged that petitioner did:
privily enter the house of J.L. Hunt and privily and feloniously take and carry away personal goods of J.L. Hunt described as follows: one Seiko watch and a small amount of money.
According to the affidavit of the arresting officer included on the arrest warrant, the total value of the watch and "small amount of money" 2 allegedly taken was "less than $200."
Issues related to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. State v. Funderburk, 259 S.C. 256, 191 S.E.2d 520 (1972). The circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea when an indictment fails to state an offense. Williams v. State, 306 S.C. 89, 410 S.E.2d 563 (1991). In this case, the indictment fails to allege that the value of the items stolen was greater than $200, which is an element of the offense of grand larceny. The circuit court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to accept...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
...It is well-settled that the monetary value of the goods taken is an element of the offense of grand larceny. See Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995) (grand larceny involved taking and carrying away of goods valued at $200 or more; value is element of grand larceny offense);......
-
State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
...Weinhauer v. State, 334 S.C. 327, 513 S.E.2d 840 (1999). 22. Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366, 465 S.E.2d 358 (1995). 23. Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995). 24. Hopkins v. State, 317 S.C. 7, 451 S.E.2d 389 (1994). 25. Slack v. State, 311 S.C. 415, 429 S.E.2d 801 (1993).10 ......
-
State v. Parker, No. 25538.
...offense of robbery. The monetary value of the goods taken is an element of the offense of grand larceny. See Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995) (grand larceny involved taking and carrying away of goods valued at $200 or more; value is element of grand larceny offense); Sta......
-
Davis v. Tripp, No. 3086.
...Wachovia Bank of South Carolina, N.A. v. Player, 334 S.C. 200, 205, 512 S.E.2d 129, 132 (Ct.App.1999) (referencing Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 64, 459 S.E.2d 840, 841 (1995)). However, a statute of limitations defense does not raise a question of subject matter jurisdiction. McLendon v. ......
-
Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
...It is well-settled that the monetary value of the goods taken is an element of the offense of grand larceny. See Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995) (grand larceny involved taking and carrying away of goods valued at $200 or more; value is element of grand larceny offense);......
-
State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
...Weinhauer v. State, 334 S.C. 327, 513 S.E.2d 840 (1999). 22. Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366, 465 S.E.2d 358 (1995). 23. Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995). 24. Hopkins v. State, 317 S.C. 7, 451 S.E.2d 389 (1994). 25. Slack v. State, 311 S.C. 415, 429 S.E.2d 801 (1993).10 ......
-
State v. Parker, No. 25538.
...offense of robbery. The monetary value of the goods taken is an element of the offense of grand larceny. See Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995) (grand larceny involved taking and carrying away of goods valued at $200 or more; value is element of grand larceny offense); Sta......
-
Davis v. Tripp, No. 3086.
...Wachovia Bank of South Carolina, N.A. v. Player, 334 S.C. 200, 205, 512 S.E.2d 129, 132 (Ct.App.1999) (referencing Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62, 64, 459 S.E.2d 840, 841 (1995)). However, a statute of limitations defense does not raise a question of subject matter jurisdiction. McLendon v. ......