State v. Porterfield, 2298
| Decision Date | 06 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 2298,2298 |
| Citation | 317 S.C. 360,454 S.E.2d 351 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Sherman PORTERFIELD, Appellant. . Heard |
Deputy Chief Atty. Joseph L. Savitz, III, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen., Miller W. Shealy, Jr., and Sol. Richard A. Harpootlian, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant Sherman Porterfield was indicted on one count of drug trafficking and two counts of money laundering. The jury acquitted him of trafficking but found him guilty on one count of money laundering. The trial judge sentenced Porterfield to twenty years imprisonment suspended to 5 years service with 5 years probation. Porterfield appeals the trial judge's denial of his motion for directed verdict. We reverse.
While employed as a car salesman at "Wrights on Main" car dealership, Porterfield entered into negotiations with Shane Thompson about the sale of a Mercedes Benz which "Wrights on Main" was selling pursuant to a consignment agreement. However, on January 25, 1991, before the negotiations were completed, Thompson was arrested on drug charges. After his arrest, Thompson agreed to assist narcotics agents in an effort to arrest Porterfield. Thompson and the narcotics agents devised a plan whereby Thompson would continue to negotiate with Porterfield for the purchase of the Mercedes. Thompson testified that on February 12, 1991, he went to Wrights on Main to discuss the price of the vehicle with Porterfield. According to Thompson, he and Porterfield agreed that Thompson would purchase the car for $10,000 in cash and four ounces of cocaine.
On February 14, Thompson called Porterfield at Wrights on Main to set up the exact time Thompson was to bring the money and cocaine to him. During the February 14 telephone conversation, which was monitored, Thompson told Porterfield he "got paid by the insurance company" and that he (Thompson) wanted to consummate the deal on the following day. Thompson testified he told him this because he knew Porterfield would not have proceeded with the deal if he had known the money was actually provided by the Sheriff's Department. Thompson asked Porterfield if he wanted Thompson to leave the money and the cocaine in the car or if he wanted Thompson to bring the money and cocaine directly to him. Porterfield responded that Thompson should Thompson then asked him if he wanted Thompson to just bring him $10,000 in cash. Porterfield responded "[r]ight."
On February 15, Thompson and a narcotics agent went to Wrights on Main to consummate the transaction. Thompson and the narcotics agent had with them $10,000 in cash, obtained from a bank account belonging to the Sheriff's Department, and four ounces of cocaine in the trunk of the car. Thompson, who had been "wired," went into Wrights on Main with the $10,000 in cash while the narcotics agent remained in the car with the cocaine. During Thompson's meeting with Porterfield, Thompson told him he wanted to have the title to the car put in a family member's name so that the car would not be subject to forfeiture. Porterfield responded he (Porterfield) could "do it like that." He had Thompson count out the $10,000 in cash. After Thompson counted the money, Porterfield asked Thompson to remove his jacket and shirt at which point Porterfield noticed the transmitter which was taped to Thompson's shoulder. Porterfield then terminated the meeting and told Thompson to leave. After Thompson left his office with the $10,000 in cash, Thompson called Porterfield and tried to rehabilitate the transaction. He refused any further dealings with Thompson.
After submission to the jury, Porterfield was convicted of one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porterfield v. Lott
...in this case came from the Sheriff's Department's bank account, the statute had not been satisfied. See State v. Porterfield, 317 S.C. 360, 454 S.E.2d 351, 352-53 (App.1995). Thereafter, Porterfield filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was arrested and imprisoned with......