State v. Motley, No. 18841
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MOSS; LEWIS, BUSSEY and LITTLEJOHN, JJ., and CLARENCE E. SINGLETARY |
| Citation | 164 S.E.2d 569,251 S.C. 568 |
| Docket Number | No. 18841 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1968 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Tommy Motley, Roger Motley and Rhett Shotte, Defendants, of Whom Tommy MOTLEY is Appellant. |
Page 569
v.
Tommy Motley, Roger Motley and Rhett Shotte, Defendants, of
Whom Tommy MOTLEY is Appellant.
[251 S.C. 570] George W. Keels, Florence, for appellant.
Sol. T. Kenneth Summerford, Florence, for respondent.
MOSS, Chief Justice.
Tommy Motley, the appellant herein, along with Roger Motley and Rhett Shotte,
Page 570
were indicted by the Grand Jury of Florence County at the 1968 April Term of the Court of General Sessions, charging them with the crimes of housebreaking, safecracking, grand larceny and conspiracy to commit the offense of safecracking, in connection with a safe taken from the Gangplank Seafood Restaurant, in the [251 S.C. 571] City of Florence, South Carolina, sometime during the period after the close of business on Saturday, October 7, 1967, and the morning of Tuesday, October 10, 1967.It appears from the record that Robert G. Knight was employed to represent Roger Motley and George W. Keels was employed to represent Tommy Motley, and David W. Keller, Jr. and E. N. Zeigler were appointed to represent Rhett Shotte. When the case was called for trial, the court was informed, at Chambers, that Robert G. Knight, attorney for Roger Motley, had removed himself from the case because his fee had not been paid. The court then appointed two other attorneys to defend Roger Motley, with the trial to commence the following day. The attorney for Tommy Motley then made a motion for a continuance on the ground that a conspiracy charge was pending and he had not had an opportunity to confer with the two court appointed attorneys thereabout. The Solicitor agreed not to proceed on the conspiracy charge inasmuch as Robert G. Knight no longer represented Roger Motley. The next day the court was advised by Robert G. Knight that his fee had been paid and he was back in the case representing Roger Motley; whereupon the Solicitor refused to strike the conspiracy count from the indictment because the retained counsel of Roger Motley was back in the case. It was at this stage of the case that counsel for all of the defendants made motions to continue the case in order to permit them to make preparation for defending the conspiracy charge. All of these motions were refused and the case was at 11:45 A.M. set for trial on the same day at 2:30 P.M. The case was tried as scheduled, resulting in the jury finding all of the defendants guilty on all counts of the indictment. Notice of intention to appeal to this court was duly given by the appellant.
The first question for determination is whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error in refusing to grant appellant's motion for a continuance. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and [251 S.C. 572] the decision of the trial court thereabout will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law. State v. Cannon, 248 S.C. 506, 151 S.E.2d 752. When a motion for a continuance is based upon the contention that counsel for the defendant has not had time to prepare his case its denial by the trial court has rarely been disturbed on appeal. It is axiomatic that determination of such motions must depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case. State v. Livingston, 233 S.C. 400, 105 S.E.2d 73.
It appears that the appellant and his codefendants were tried under an indictment returned by the Grand Jury at the 1968 April Term of the Court of General Sessions. It also appears that another indictment, in which was included the charge of conspiracy, had been in existence against the defendants since October, 1967. Apparently the Solicitor handed out a new indictment against the three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bennett, No. 24718
...S.Ct. 718, 133 L.Ed.2d 671 (1996); Bennett's Issue 12: Bozeman v. State, 307 S.C. 172, 414 S.E.2d 144 (1992); see also State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569 We affirm Bennett's convictions and the sentences imposed for armed robbery and larceny. The sentence of death is reversed and......
-
State v. Colden, No. 4207.
...made any difference. The court noted its reliance upon Bozeman v. State, 307 S.C. 172, 414 S.E.2d 144 (1992), and State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569 (1968), where it found "no reversible error because the petitioner did not point to any other evidence or witnesses which could hav......
-
State v. Pendergrass, No. 20564
...heart attack just prior to trial. This Court will rarely disturb a trial court's resolution of a motion for continuance. State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569 (1968); State v. Hill, S.C., 234 S.E.2d 219 (1977). A review of the transcript satisfies us that the public defender's repre......
-
State v. Elephant, Inc., Appellate Case No. 2016-001695
...has not had time to prepare his case[,] its denial by the trial court has rarely been disturbed on appeal." (quoting State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 572, 164 S.E.2d 569, 570 (1968))); id. (rejecting appellant's argument "that a continuance should have been granted because the solicitor was a......
-
State v. Bennett, No. 24718
...S.Ct. 718, 133 L.Ed.2d 671 (1996); Bennett's Issue 12: Bozeman v. State, 307 S.C. 172, 414 S.E.2d 144 (1992); see also State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569 We affirm Bennett's convictions and the sentences imposed for armed robbery and larceny. The sentence of death is reversed and......
-
State v. Colden, No. 4207.
...made any difference. The court noted its reliance upon Bozeman v. State, 307 S.C. 172, 414 S.E.2d 144 (1992), and State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569 (1968), where it found "no reversible error because the petitioner did not point to any other evidence or witnesses which coul......
-
State v. Pendergrass, No. 20564
...heart attack just prior to trial. This Court will rarely disturb a trial court's resolution of a motion for continuance. State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569 (1968); State v. Hill, S.C., 234 S.E.2d 219 (1977). A review of the transcript satisfies us that the public defender's repre......
-
State v. Elephant, Inc., Appellate Case No. 2016-001695
...has not had time to prepare his case[,] its denial by the trial court has rarely been disturbed on appeal." (quoting State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 572, 164 S.E.2d 569, 570 (1968))); id. (rejecting appellant's argument "that a continuance should have been granted because the solic......