Locke v. State, 25146.
| Decision Date | 12 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 25146.,25146. |
| Citation | 341 S.C. 54,533 S.E.2d 324 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Marvin J. LOCKE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, and Assistant Attorney General Matthew M. McGuire, all of Columbia, for respondent.
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari on petitioner's Question 1, dispense with further briefing, and affirm the PCR judge's order. Certiorari is denied as to petitioner's remaining Questions.
Petitioner was indicted for "strong arm robbery" in violation of S.C.Code Section 16-11-325 (Supp.1999). The text of the indictment read as follows:
The Defendant ... did in York County, on or about July 10, 1996, assist and act together with others in the felonious taking of goods and/or monies from the person or presence of Calvin Burris, Jr., by means of force or intimidation, such goods and/or monies being described as follows: Approximately Two Thousand and NO/100 ($2000.00) Dollars in U.S. Currency and a cellular telephone, with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of such goods and/or monies, all in violation of the Common Law of South Carolina, penalty provided under Section 16-11-325, Code of Laws of South Carolina, (1976), as amended.
Petitioner argues that the indictment fails to allege the essential elements of the common law robbery offense because the indictment does not mention asportation. Petitioner contends that because the indictment fails to allege the essential elements of the offense, the indictment is jurisdictionally deficient. Therefore, petitioner concludes, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to try him for common law robbery.
While petitioner did not raise this issue at his PCR hearing, subject matter jurisdiction issues may be raised at any time. See Weinhauer v. State, 334 S.C. 327, 513 S.E.2d 840 (1999)
().
A circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction if: (1) there has been an indictment which sufficiently states the offense; (2) there has been a waiver of indictment; or (3) the charge is a lesser included charge of the crime charged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamilton
...of the offense intended to be charged and informs the defendant of the circumstances he must be prepared to defend. Locke v. State, 341 S.C. 54, 533 S.E.2d 324 (2000). In reviewing the sufficiency of an indictment, an appellate court must "look at the issue with a practical eye in view of t......
-
McGee v. Warden of Lieber Corr. Inst.
... ... Frankie ... Lee McGee (“Petitioner”) is a state inmate who ... filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to ... 28 ... State ... v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93 102 103 610 S.E.2d 494 500 ... (2005); Locke v. State 341 S.C. 54, 533 S.E.2d 324 ... (2000); ... State v. Jones, 333 S.C. 6, 501 ... ...
-
State v. Gentry
...Brown v. State, 343 S.C. 342, 540 S.E.2d 846 (2001). 18. State v. McFadden, 342 S.C. 629, 539 S.E.2d 387 (2000). 19. Locke v. State, 341 S.C. 54, 533 S.E.2d 324 (2000). 20. Knox v. State, 340 S.C. 81, 530 S.E.2d 887 (2000). 21. Weinhauer v. State, 334 S.C. 327, 513 S.E.2d 840 (1999). 22. Br......
-
State v. Dudley
...of the offense intended to be charged and inform the defendant of the circumstances he must be prepared to defend. Locke v. State, 341 S.C. 54, 533 S.E.2d 324 (2000); Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998); see also Browning, 320 S.C. at 368, 465 S.E.2d at 359 (true test of su......