State v. Grandy, No. 23326
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FINNEY; GREGORY |
| Citation | 306 S.C. 224,411 S.E.2d 207 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Harvey Lee GRANDY, Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 23326 |
| Decision Date | 24 September 1990 |
Page 207
v.
Harvey Lee GRANDY, Appellant.
Decided Feb. 4, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1991.
[306 S.C. 225] Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Sol. Larry F. Grant, of York, for respondent.
FINNEY, Justice:
Appellant Harvey Lee Grandy was tried on December 12, 1988, and convicted of trafficking in cocaine. He was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment and fined Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars. We reverse and remand.
Appellant was arrested on July 10, 1988, and on July 27, 1988, the York County public defender was appointed to represent him. On October 24, 1988, appellant was indicted for trafficking in cocaine by possessing more than 400 grams of cocaine. Sometime between July and November, 1988, appellant allegedly secured private counsel, and the public defender was relieved.
At a pre-trial hearing on December 8, 1988, the trial court was apprised that a question existed as to the status of appellant's legal representation. The trial court reappointed the public defender pursuant to its finding that appellant had failed to secure private counsel after having ample time to do so.
On appeal, appellant alleges the trial court erred in failing to allow him a reasonable amount of time to complete financial negotiations with private counsel, instead[306 S.C. 226] appointing the public defender to represent appellant against his wishes. We disagree.
Page 208
It is undisputed that appellant had from July to December to secure private counsel. We find that, under the circumstances, five months is a reasonable time in which to retain counsel. Moreover, appellant was not denied the assistance of counsel. The public defender was re-appointed after advising the trial court that she had conducted an investigation, handled the preliminary hearing and could represent the appellant if he would assist her. We conclude that appellant's exception is without merit.
Appellant asserts further that the trial court erred in refusing to charge lesser-included offenses, specifically possession with intent to distribute. We disagree.
Trafficking in cocaine is defined as the possession of ten grams or more of cocaine. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(2) (Supp.1989). Possession with intent to distribute is defined as the possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute it....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gill, No. 2379
...S.E.2d 707 (1989). The explanation must be related to the case to be tried, clear, reasonably specific, and legitimate. State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991). 3 If the proffered reason is facially valid, the challenging party bears the burden of showing that the reason is mer......
-
State v. Edwards, No. 4261.
...as to which jurors he was attempting to seat or why other jurors were more desirable than the two in question); State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (emphasizing that solicitor failed to articulate racially neutral explanation in his assertion he excluded prospective black j......
-
State v. Franklin, No. 24190
...(1991) (vacillating voir dire responses by prospective capital jurors are proper grounds for peremptorily strikes) with State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (where no explanation given why other venirepersons were more desirable than one struck, Batson The trial judge's ruli......
-
State v. Cochran, No. 4116.
...as to which jurors he was attempting to seat or why other jurors were more desirable than the two in question); State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (emphasizing that solicitor failed to articulate racially neutral explanation in his assertion he excluded prospective black j......
-
State v. Gill, No. 2379
...S.E.2d 707 (1989). The explanation must be related to the case to be tried, clear, reasonably specific, and legitimate. State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991). 3 If the proffered reason is facially valid, the challenging party bears the burden of showing that the reason is mer......
-
State v. Edwards, No. 4261.
...as to which jurors he was attempting to seat or why other jurors were more desirable than the two in question); State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (emphasizing that solicitor failed to articulate racially neutral explanation in his assertion he excluded prospective black j......
-
State v. Franklin, No. 24190
...(1991) (vacillating voir dire responses by prospective capital jurors are proper grounds for peremptorily strikes) with State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (where no explanation given why other venirepersons were more desirable than one struck, Batson The trial judge's ruli......
-
State v. Cochran, No. 4116.
...as to which jurors he was attempting to seat or why other jurors were more desirable than the two in question); State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (emphasizing that solicitor failed to articulate racially neutral explanation in his assertion he excluded prospective black j......