State v. Ramsey, 26595.
Decision Date | 09 February 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 26595.,26595. |
Citation | 673 S.E.2d 428 |
Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. Jimmy RAMSEY, Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from York County; John C. Hayes III, Circuit Court Judge.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia, for Appellant.
Christopher A. Wellborn, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.
In this case, the magistrate held a probable cause hearing on Respondent Jimmy Ramsey's criminal domestic violence (CDV) charge and dismissed it for lack of probable cause. The circuit court affirmed the magistrate's finding. On appeal, the State claims the magistrate erred in holding a probable cause hearing and dismissing Respondent's CDV charge.
On February 18, 2006, Respondent was arrested on a warrant for burglary first degree and was issued a uniform traffic ticket for CDV first offense. On May 16, 2006, the circuit court held a preliminary hearing on the burglary charge. The circuit court dismissed the burglary charge for lack of probable cause and remanded the CDV charge to the magistrate. Respondent filed with the magistrate a motion to dismiss the CDV charge for lack of probable cause. On August 14, 2006, the magistrate held a hearing to determine probable cause and granted Respondent's motion to dismiss. The State appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the magistrate's order of dismissal and the State appealed. We certified this case pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR.
Did the magistrate have jurisdiction to hold a probable cause hearing on Respondent's charge for criminal domestic violence?
In general, magistrates have criminal jurisdiction "of all offenses which may be subject to the penalties of either fine or forfeiture not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment in the jail or workhouse not exceeding thirty days." S.C.Code Ann. § 22-3-550 (2007). For crimes outside magistrates' jurisdiction, magistrates are authorized to conduct a preliminary examination. See Rule 2, SCRCrimP ("Any defendant charged with a crime not triable by a magistrate shall be brought before a magistrate and shall be given notice of his right to a preliminary hearing."). The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime and to warrant the defendant's subsequent trial. 12 S.C. JURISPRUDENCE Magistrates and Municipal Judges § 31. Nevertheless, for those matters within magistrates' jurisdiction, preliminary determinations of probable cause are not authorized by statute. Indeed, South Carolina law requires that all magistrate proceedings "shall be summary or with only such delay as a fair and just examination of the case requires." S.C.Code Ann. § 22-3-730 (2007).
In the present case, Respondent was charged with criminal domestic violence, first offense, pursuant to Section 16-25-20 of the South Carolina Code, which provides that the offense "must be tried in summary court." S.C.Code Ann. § 16-25-20 (2007). Prior to ruling on the merits, the magistrate found that Section 22-5-710 of the South Carolina Code gave him the authority to hold preliminary examinations in criminal cases. See S.C.Code Ann. § 22-5-710 (2008). We disagree, and hold that the magistrate did not have the authority to hold a preliminary hearing in this matter.
Section 22-5-710, relied upon by the magistrate, grants "magistrates in counties where a county court has been established" the authority to conduct a preliminary hearing "as is provided...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Williams
...comply with the requirements of that section. The State argued that here, no authorizing provision allows dismissal. The State cited to State v. Ramsey,6 in which the supreme court found the magistrate erred in dismissing a case for lack of probable cause because magistrates are not entitle......
-
South Carolina Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Mccarson
...solely to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant the defendant's detention and trial”); State v. Ramsey, 381 S.C. 375, 376, 673 S.E.2d 428, 428–29 (2009) (“The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the defendant c......
-
Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff's Office
... ... State ex rel. McLeod v. Montgomery, 244 S.C. 308, 314, 136 S.E.2d 778, 782 (1964) ("However plain the ... ...
-
State v. Ramsey, 4983.
...remanded, holding magistrates may not conduct preliminary hearings in cases within their trial jurisdiction. State v. Ramsey, 381 S.C. 375, 377–78, 673 S.E.2d 428, 429 (2009). On remand, Ramsey made another motion to dismiss. He argued his case was not properly before the magistrate court b......