State v. Crocker

• Decision Date: 31 October 2005
• Docket Number: No. 4038.,4038.
• Citation: 621 S.E.2d 890
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Phillip H. CROCKER, III, Appellant.

621 S.E.2d 890

The STATE, Respondent, v. Phillip H. CROCKER, III, Appellant.

No. 4038.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard September 13, 2005.

Decided October 31, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John Dennis Delgado, and Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, both of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General; and Solicitor W. Barney Giese, all of Columbia, for respondent.

KITTREDGE, J.:

Phillip H. Crocker, III, was convicted and sentenced in Richland County for murder and trafficking in marijuana. Crocker appeals only from the drug conviction and sentence, contending the State neither alleged nor presented evidence that he committed a drug trafficking offense in Richland County. This contention is embraced in three assignments of error: (1) the denial of his motions to quash the marijuana trafficking indictment and for a directed verdict based on lack of jurisdiction and improper venue; (2) the denial of his motion for a directed verdict based on lack of evidence; and (3) the admission of certain evidence.¹ We affirm.

FACTS

Nathaniel Casey, Jr. (known as "Junior") was murdered when he and his wife, Consuelo, met Crocker in a parking lot in Richland County for the purpose of buying a large amount of marijuana. The relevant facts leading up to this ultimately violent meeting between the Caseys and Crocker are as follows.

Consuelo operated a barbershop in Dillon, South Carolina, and Junior sold marijuana for a living. The Caseys wanted to build a home, and they chose Junior's marijuana business as the way to raise the necessary funds.

On November 19, 2001, Consuelo told an acquaintance, Willie Jennings, about the plan. She inquired if Jennings could assist the couple with a large purchase in the $40,000 range, or about 50 pounds of marijuana. Jennings said he could put them in touch with a dealer.

The following day, November 20, Jennings returned to the barbershop with the appellant Crocker, who lived in Charlotte, North Carolina. At this meeting Crocker agreed to sell Junior approximately 50 pounds of marijuana. They planned to meet in Columbia, South Carolina, the following day. The exact location would be determined on the way there. Cell phone numbers were exchanged. The meeting concluded, and it was agreed Jennings would be paid $500 for helping broker the deal between Junior and Crocker.

The next day, November 21, Consuelo and Junior left Dillon in their Chevrolet Tahoe between 1:00 and 2:00 in the afternoon and headed for Columbia with $40,000 in cash. Several phone conversations were made via cell phone while en route. Crocker first called the Caseys from near his home in Charlotte. Crocker called the Caseys again around 3:00 p.m., this time from the Blythewood area of Columbia in Richland County. Several more calls were made back and forth in the Columbia area. The parties finally agreed to meet in the Lowe's parking lot, near I-20 on Two Notch Road in Columbia.

When the Caseys arrived in the Lowe's parking lot, Crocker pulled in behind them, driving a dark gray station wagon with wood grain paneling. Crocker backed up his station wagon to the Casey vehicle. Crocker got out and asked Junior to help him transfer the drugs. Junior exited to help Crocker with the lifting of the marijuana, while Consuelo remained in the front seat of the vehicle.

Crocker and Junior transferred a large, blue, Tupperware-like container into the back of the Tahoe. Consuelo noticed a conversation between Junior and Crocker as the purported drugs were placed in the Casey vehicle, but she was unable to hear what was said. Crocker then pulled out a gun and shot Junior, killing him. Crocker fled the scene in his station wagon. Law enforcement responded to the crime scene.

No marijuana was found in the large container, only blankets and a sack of concrete and cinder blocks. On the blue container police found seven fingerprints belonging to Crocker's father, Phillip H. Crocker, II. Also found in the Casey vehicle were two handguns and the $40,000 in cash.

Both Consuelo and Jennings eventually cooperated with police. A search warrant was executed at Crocker's home in Charlotte, where he resided with his father. A number of items were found at the house, including (1) a half pound bag of marijuana in block form locked in a shed in the back yard; (2) a book on laws pertaining to marijuana; (3) storage containers identical to that found in the Casey's vehicle, all of which contained the same type of blankets; (4) paperwork relating to a 1988 Pontiac 6000 Station Wagon, which had been sold to a third party after Junior's murder; and (5) various weapons and ammunition. Five or six cell phones — which were connected to accounts in different names — were also found.

Prior to trial, Crocker moved to quash the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. The trial court declined to grant the motions, noting that at the pretrial stage, the record was "factually deprived." The motions were renewed at the directed verdict stage and denied. Crocker also moved to suppress the items seized from his home. The trial court denied the suppression motion with respect to the marijuana and book on marijuana laws found at his residence, among other items.

The jury convicted Crocker of both charges. Crocker was sentenced to thirty years for the murder charge and five years, consecutively, on the trafficking in marijuana charge. Crocker appeals only from the drug-related conviction and sentence.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Crocker's challenge to his trafficking in marijuana conviction is threefold: (1) since the "State failed to allege any facts to support that the defendant committed a trafficking offense in Richland County," the trial court erred in denying his motions to quash and for directed verdict, on jurisdictional and venue grounds; (2) since the "State failed to present evidence that the [trafficking] offense was committed in Richland County," the trial court erred in denying his directed verdict motion based on jurisdictional and venue grounds, as well as lack of evidence; and (3) the trial court erred in the admission of certain items seized from his home. We address these issues separately, although we recognize the relationship among them.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

A. Subject matter and personal jurisdiction

"Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." Pierce v. State, 338 S.C. 139, 150, 526 S.E.2d 222, 227 (2000). "The circuit court has original jurisdiction in all criminal matters except those where an inferior court is given exclusive jurisdiction." State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 582, 614 S.E.2d 623, 625 (2005); S.C. Const. art. V, § 11 (Supp. 2004). "Circuit courts obviously have subject matter jurisdiction to try criminal matters." State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 101, 610 S.E.2d 494, 499 (2005). Circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over drug trafficking charges. Dudley, 364 S.C. at 582, 614 S.E.2d at 625. Generally, the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction are satisfied when appropriate charges are filed in a competent court. State v. Dudley, 354 S.C. 514, 523, 581 S.E.2d 171, 176 (Ct.App.2003), aff'd as modified, 364 S.C. 578, 614 S.E.2d 623.

"Jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the person of the accused is indispensable to a valid conviction." Dudley, 354 S.C. at 522, 581 S.E.2d at 175 (quoting State v. Langford, 223 S.C. 20, 26, 73 S.E.2d 854, 857 (1953)). Two distinct types of jurisdiction exist: (1) jurisdiction of the subject or subject matter, and (2) jurisdiction of the person. Dudley, 354 S.C. at 522, 581 S.E.2d at 175.

We summarily dispose of Crocker's subject matter jurisdiction claim that the State failed to allege any facts that he committed a drug trafficking offense in Richland County, and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the above-cited authorities.

Turning to the second prong of Crocker's jurisdictional challenge, it is generally recognized that jurisdiction over the person in a criminal case lies in the state or county where the crime was committed. 4 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c) (2d ed. 1999). The indictment alleged, in pertinent part, that Crocker "did in Richland County on or about November 21, 2001[,] knowingly ... conspire to sell more than 10 lbs. of Marijuana." During pretrial arguments, the State disputed Crocker's factual recitation, and the trial court denied the motion preliminarily, noting the record was "factually deprived." Clearly, the State alleged a trafficking offense in Richland County, and resolution of Crocker's motion required an evidentiary record. We reject as meritless Crocker's assertion that the trial court erred in denying his directed verdict motion based on a lack of jurisdiction over his person.

The real thrust of Crocker's jurisdictional arguments is that the trial court erred in not granting his directed verdict motion, because the State failed to prove any act in furtherance of a conspiracy to traffic in marijuana took place in Richland County.

As we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, as we must, we reject the premise of Crocker's assertion that the conspiracy had no connection to Richland County. State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998) (holding that on a directed verdict motion in a criminal case, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State). To accept Crocker's factual recitation would have required the trial court — and now us — to abandon the mandated lens through which evidence is viewed in a directed verdict motion in a criminal case. When properly viewed, the record is replete with...