Odom v. State, 25490.
| Decision Date | 01 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 25490.,25490. |
| Citation | 350 S.C. 300,566 S.E.2d 528 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Maurice Anthony ODOM, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Kenneth P. Woodington, all of Columbia, for respondent.
We granted a writ of certiorari in this post-conviction relief (PCR) case1 to consider whether an oral waiver of presentment is sufficient to bestow subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court. We find it is not and reverse the denial of PCR.
Petitioner Odom pled guilty to second degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor. At the plea hearing, the Solicitor alerted the trial judge that the indictment had not been true billed. The trial judge then questioned petitioner as follows:
Petitioner subsequently sought PCR on the ground the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction because there was no written waiver of presentment. The PCR judge denied relief. He found petitioner had orally waived presentment and this oral waiver was adequate.
In the absence of an indictment, there must be a valid waiver of presentment for the trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction of the offense. State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992).
South Carolina Code Ann. § 17-23-130 (1985) provides that "the clerk shall have the defendant sign a waiver of the presentment by the grand jury and his plea of guilty." Similarly, S.C.Code Ann. § 17-23-140 (1985) provides that "upon signing the waiver of presentment" the defendant may plead guilty. We have held compliance with these sections is mandatory and, further, that they require a written waiver. Phillips v. State, 281 S.C. 41, 314 S.E.2d 313 (1984); State v. Martin, 278 S.C. 256, 294 S.E.2d 345 (1982); Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982); see also State v. Clarkson, 337 S.C. 518, 523 S.E.2d 817 (Ct.App.1999), rev'd on other grounds, 347 S.C. 115, 553 S.E.2d 450 (2001).
In light of the statutory language requiring the defendant to sign a waiver of presentment, we find an oral waiver is not sufficient. The trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction to accept petitioner's plea. Accordingly, the denial of PCR is reversed and petitioner's plea is hereby vacated.
REVERSED.
1. C...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gentry
...9. Joseph v. State, 351 S.C. 551, 571 S.E.2d 280 (2002). 10. State v. Parker, 351 S.C. 567, 571 S.E.2d 288 (2002). 11. Odom v. State, 350 S.C. 300, 566 S.E.2d 528 (2002). 12. State v. Primus, 349 S.C. 576, 564 S.E.2d 103 (2002). 13. State v. Timmons, 349 S.C. 389, 563 S.E.2d 657 (2002). 14.......
-
State v. Smalls
...Ann. § 17-23-140 (2003) (fourth emphasis in original). Compliance with sections 17-23-130 and -140 is mandatory. Odom v. State, 350 S.C. 300, 302, 566 S.E.2d 528, 529 (2002). Our case law describes the existence of a sufficient true-billed indictment or a valid waiver of presentment as a pr......
-
Richardson v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 25492.
... ... law which prohibited a person from holding two offices only if they were "incompatible." State v. Buttz, 9 S.C. 156 (1877). Incompatibility meant either that the offices involved "such a ... ...
-
State v. Rogers
...raise that issue before the jury is sworn and not afterwards."); id. at 106, 610 S.E.2d at 501 (expressly overruling Odom v. State, 350 S.C. 300, 566 S.E.2d 528 (2002), wherein the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the absence of a charging document could not be cured by an oral waiver......