Pringle v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22448,22448 |
| Citation | 339 S.E.2d 127,287 S.C. 409 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Douglas McArthur PRINGLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Graydon V. Olive, III of Law Offices of Holler, Dennis & Olive, Fitzgerald O'Conner, Jr. and Chief Atty. William Isaac Diggs of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka and Asst. Atty. Gen. Frank L. Valenta, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
This matter is before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari after the denial of petitioner's application for post-conviction relief. We grant certiorari and dispense with briefing. We affirm.
Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five (25) years. In his petition, he claims that he was never indicted and, therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Petitioner bases this claim on the fact that the signature of the grand jury foreman does not appear on the indictment forms.
The post-conviction judge found petitioner was properly indicted and denied relief. The stamped application of "True Bill" on the indictment form was taken as conclusive proof the grand jury had voted to indict petitioner.
While it is preferable for the grand jury foreman to sign the true bill, the foreman's signature is not essential to the validity of the indictment when the indictment is in writing and published by the clerk. See State v. Creighton, 10 S.C.L. (1 Nott & McCord) 256 (1818). In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the proceedings of a court of general jurisdiction will be assumed. See generally State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395, 111 S.E.2d 669 (1959); State v. Jones, 211 S.C. 319, 45 S.E.2d 29 (1947); State v. Waring, 109 S.C. 52, 95 S.E. 143 (1918). Here, there was testimony by the foreman of the grand jury that indicted petitioner that the regular procedure was to have the clerk publish the indictment in open court after the grand jury returned a true bill.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. McFadden
...one who challenges a proceeding to prove his claims. See, e.g., Tate v. State, 345 S.C. 577, 549 S.E.2d 601 (2001); Pringle v. State, 287 S.C. 409, 339 S.E.2d 127 (1986). The Applicant offered no credible evidence in support of this claim and no testimony which supported his claim. Therefor......
-
Blakeney v. Commissioner of Correction
...where other four indictments properly signed and bill of indictment could be amended by adding foreman's signature); Pringle v. State, 287 S.C. 409, 339 S.E.2d 127 (1986) (foreman's signature not essential to validity of indictment; "True Bill" stamp on indictment conclusive proof that gran......
-
State v. Williams
...543 (1992). Absent evidence to the contrary, proceedings in a court of general jurisdiction will be presumed regular. Pringle v. State, 287 S.C. 409, 339 S.E.2d 127 (1986). However, when faced with an irregularity in an indictment and the evidence of record is insufficient to show the actio......
-
Sosebee v. Leeke, 22796
...binds us to uphold the post-conviction judge's factual findings if "any evidence" of probative value supports them. Pringle v. State, 287 S.C. 409, 339 S.E.2d 127 (1986); Webb v. State, 281 S.C. 237, 314 S.E.2d 839 The hearing judge ruled Petitioner could possibly show prejudice only from t......