State v. Finley, 21691
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GREGORY; LEWIS |
| Citation | 277 S.C. 548,290 S.E.2d 808 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Douglas Daniel FINLEY, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 21691,21691 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1982 |
Page 808
v.
Douglas Daniel FINLEY, Appellant.
[277 S.C. 549] Asst. Appellate Defender David W. Carpenter, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, and Asst. Public Defender Venable Vermont, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Martha L. McElveen and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
GREGORY, Justice:
This case involves the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (I.A.D.) 18 U.S.C.A.App. (1980), South Carolina Code Ann. §§ 17-11-10 through 17-11-80 (1976). Appellant Finley was indicted and convicted of murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, and carrying an unlawful weapon. He appeals from a denial by the lower court to dismiss the action due to the expiration of the one hundred twenty day period within [277 S.C. 550] which trial should have been commenced pursuant to Article IV(c) of I.A.D. We affirm.
Page 809
Appellant, a parolee from the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, was in South Carolina when he committed these crimes. After being released on bail by the South Carolina authorities, he was re-incarcerated in Georgia for violation of the conditions of federal parole.
The Richland County solicitor filed a request under Article IV of I.A.D. for temporary custody of appellant to try him for the crimes charged. Appellant arrived at the Richland County jail on July 29, 1980. On September 16, 1980, appellant filed a motion with the circuit court to have certain out-of-state witnesses ruled material so they could be brought to South Carolina at the State's expense. The motion was heard September 29, 1980 and taken under advisement. On December 8, 1980, a ruling on the motion had not been made, and appellant moved to have the charges dismissed because of the State's failure to bring him to trial within one hundred twenty days after his arrival.
The circuit judge hearing the motion to dismiss ruled that the circuit judge who took under advisement appellant's motion to have certain out-of-state witnesses ruled material had in effect granted a continuance thereby tolling the one hundred twenty day period. The case was tried January 27, 1981, and resulted in conviction. Appellant raises three exceptions on appeal.
First, appellant argues the circuit judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss due to the expiration of the one hundred twenty day period without commencement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Superior Court
...A.2d 234, 239 [183 Cal.App.3d 675] [same because prisoner preferred sending state's facilitity and had job there]; State v. Finley (1982) 290 S.E.2d 808, 277 S.C. 548 [delay due to prisoner's motion]; 99 ALR 3d It has been further held that " '[a prisoner] cannot by his own action manufactu......
-
State v. Acosta, 49621-8
...State v. Fischer, 183 N.J.Super. 79, 443 Page 626 A.2d 249 (1981); McCullough v. State, 520 P.2d 820 (Okla.Cr.App.1974); State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 290 S.E.2d 808 (1982); McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 248 S.E.2d 808 (1978); State v. Belcher, 245 S.E.2d 161 (W.Va.1978). See genera......
-
Jones v. State, 90-151
...type involved here is neither unexpected nor unreasonably lengthy. United States v. Taylor, 861 F.2d 316 (1st Cir.1988); State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 290 S.E.2d 808 We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the information against Appellant. The 120-day time limit wa......
-
Griffin v. Martin, 85-6581
...S.C. 304, 313, 278 S.E.2d 335, 340 (1981) (Id.); State v. Griffin, 277 S.C. 193, 198, 285 S.E.2d 631, 634 (1981) (Id.); State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 552, 290 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1982) (Id.), holding that, self defense being an affirmative defense, the burden of proof by a preponderance of th......
-
Marshall v. Superior Court
...A.2d 234, 239 [183 Cal.App.3d 675] [same because prisoner preferred sending state's facilitity and had job there]; State v. Finley (1982) 290 S.E.2d 808, 277 S.C. 548 [delay due to prisoner's motion]; 99 ALR 3d It has been further held that " '[a prisoner] cannot by his own action manufactu......
-
State v. Acosta, 49621-8
...State v. Fischer, 183 N.J.Super. 79, 443 Page 626 A.2d 249 (1981); McCullough v. State, 520 P.2d 820 (Okla.Cr.App.1974); State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 290 S.E.2d 808 (1982); McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 248 S.E.2d 808 (1978); State v. Belcher, 245 S.E.2d 161 (W.Va.1978). See genera......
-
Jones v. State, 90-151
...type involved here is neither unexpected nor unreasonably lengthy. United States v. Taylor, 861 F.2d 316 (1st Cir.1988); State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 290 S.E.2d 808 We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the information against Appellant. The 120-day time limit wa......
-
Griffin v. Martin, 85-6581
...S.C. 304, 313, 278 S.E.2d 335, 340 (1981) (Id.); State v. Griffin, 277 S.C. 193, 198, 285 S.E.2d 631, 634 (1981) (Id.); State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 552, 290 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1982) (Id.), holding that, self defense being an affirmative defense, the burden of proof by a preponderance of th......