State v. Patterson, 20995

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtNESS; LEWIS; LITTLEJOHN
Citation273 S.C. 361,256 S.E.2d 417
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Granville Lewis PATTERSON and Kenneth McCray Collins, Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 20995,20995
Decision Date25 June 1979

Page 417

256 S.E.2d 417
273 S.C. 361
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Granville Lewis PATTERSON and Kenneth McCray Collins, Appellants.
No. 20995.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June 25, 1979.

[273 S.C. 362] Irby E. Walker, Jr., Myrtle Beach, for appellants.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes and Staff Atty. Buford S. Mabry, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. Hopkins G. Charles, Conway, for respondent.

NESS, Justice:

Appellants were convicted of housebreaking, armed robbery, safecracking, and three counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. We affirm the conviction of Collins and reverse the conviction of Patterson.

At the time of trial, both appellants were serving prison sentences outside the State, and were brought back to South Carolina under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. Appellant Patterson asserts the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State a continuance after the statutory period for bringing appellant to trial had expired. 1

Page 418

Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, contained in Code § 17-11-10 (1976), provides in part:

"Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term imprisonment there is pending in any other party state any untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he Shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint; provided, that for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance." (emphasis supplied)

[273 S.C. 363] Pursuant to the Act, appellant Patterson's request for a disposition of the charges against him was received by the Horry County Solicitor's Office on August 25, 1977. On May 23, 1978, Patterson moved that the charges against him be dismissed with prejudice as provided by Article IV(e) of the Act. The trial court, however, granted the State a continuance.

It is axiomatic that the decision to grant a continuance is generally within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State v. Adams, 3640.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 5 Mayo 2003
    ...treat requests by prisoners for disposition of outstanding charges. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-11-10, Art. I (2003); State v. Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 256 S.E.2d 417 (1979); see also State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 551, 290 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1982) ("The purpose of I.A.D. is to foster the expeditious ......
  • Odhinn v. State, 02-281.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 30 Diciembre 2003
    ...19 Md. App. 376, 311 A.2d 437, 440 (Ct. Spec.App.1973); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 451 Pa. 102, 301 A.2d 605, 607 (1973); State v. Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 256 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1979). The United States Supreme Court expressly declined to address this rule in Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, fn. 5......
  • State v. Barnes, Appellate Case No. 2017-002140
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 22 Julio 2020
    ...states to uniformly and expeditiously dispose of charges pending against prisoners held out of state."); State v. Patterson , 273 S.C. 361, 363, 256 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1979) ("The goal of promoting prisoner rehabilitation is achieved by requiring the receiving state to proceed to trial within......
  • Fex v. Michigan, 91-7873
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 23 Febrero 1993
    ...State, 266 Md. 136, 143, 292 A.2d 48, 51 (1972)); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 451 Pa. 102, 106, 301 A.2d 605, 607 (1973); State v. Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 363, 256 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1979). But see, e.g., State v. Lippolis, 107 N.J.Super. 137, 147, 257 A.2d 705, 711 (App.Div.1969), rev'd, 55 N.J......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Adams, 3640.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 5 Mayo 2003
    ...treat requests by prisoners for disposition of outstanding charges. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-11-10, Art. I (2003); State v. Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 256 S.E.2d 417 (1979); see also State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 551, 290 S.E.2d 808, 809 (1982) ("The purpose of I.A.D. is to foster the expeditious ......
  • Odhinn v. State, 02-281.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 30 Diciembre 2003
    ...19 Md. App. 376, 311 A.2d 437, 440 (Ct. Spec.App.1973); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 451 Pa. 102, 301 A.2d 605, 607 (1973); State v. Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 256 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1979). The United States Supreme Court expressly declined to address this rule in Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, fn. 5......
  • State v. Barnes, Appellate Case No. 2017-002140
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 22 Julio 2020
    ...states to uniformly and expeditiously dispose of charges pending against prisoners held out of state."); State v. Patterson , 273 S.C. 361, 363, 256 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1979) ("The goal of promoting prisoner rehabilitation is achieved by requiring the receiving state to proceed to trial within......
  • Fex v. Michigan, 91-7873
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 23 Febrero 1993
    ...State, 266 Md. 136, 143, 292 A.2d 48, 51 (1972)); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 451 Pa. 102, 106, 301 A.2d 605, 607 (1973); State v. Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 363, 256 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1979). But see, e.g., State v. Lippolis, 107 N.J.Super. 137, 147, 257 A.2d 705, 711 (App.Div.1969), rev'd, 55 N.J......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT