Simmons v. State
Decision Date | 12 November 2020 |
Docket Number | 2020-MO-013,Appellate Case 2019-001149 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Shireen Nicole Simmons, Appellant, v. The State of South Carolina, Respondent. |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted October 15, 2020
Appeal From Orangeburg County The Honorable Edgar W. Dickson Circuit Court Judge
Jason Scott Luck, of Luck VI Ltd. Co. d/b/a Jason Scott Luck Attorney at Law of Bennettsville, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
Shireen Nicole Simmons appeals her conviction for a traffic violation in municipal court pursuant to Rule 203(d)(1)(A)(ii), SCACR. We affirm Simmons' conviction pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1) SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to Simmons' claim section 14-25-95 of the South Carolina Code is unconstitutional because the court of common pleas lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals from municipal court, our state constitution grants the General Assembly the ability to determine the appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts, and the General Assembly has done so. S.C. Const. art. V, § 11 () (emphasis added); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-95 (2017) (). See S.C. Code Ann. § 14-5-340 (2017) (); Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 343, 713 S.E.2d 278, 283 (2011) ().
2. Concerning Simmons' argument the municipal court committed reversible error because it did not order and pay for a transcript, the municipal court was not required to order or pay for a transcript. S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-105 (2017) () (emphasis added); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-195 (2017) () (emphasis added).
3. With reference to Simmons' contention the municipal court committed reversible error because the return does not match court records, Simmons' point is conclusory, and regardless, she did not suffer prejudice as a result. Brouwer v. Sisters of Charity Providence Hosps., 409 S.C. 514, 520 n.4, 763 S.E.2d 200, 203 n.4 (2014) ( ); State v. Hariott, 210 S.C. 290, 298, 42 S.E.2d 385, 388 (1947) (citing State v. Woods, 189 S.C. 281, 290, 1 S.E.2d 190, 194 (1939)) () .
4. Regarding Simmons' assertion the municipal court committed reversible error because it did not serve the parties with its return, Simmons discovered the return and filed a motion to strike the return before the hearing on her appeal, and thus, she did not sustain prejudice as a result. State v. Hoffman, 257 S.C. 461, 470, 186 S.E.2d 421, 425 (1972) (citing State v. Hariott, 210 S.C. 290, 298, 42 S.E.2d 385, 388 (1947)) (appellant has demonstrated prejudice she suffered as a result of error) reversal is warranted only where . See S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-105 (2017) ().
5. In relation to Simmons' claim the municipal court erroneously excluded exculpatory evidence, see State v Shuler, 353 S.C. 176, 184, 577 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2003) ("The relevance, materiality, and admissibility of evidence are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court and a ruling will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial