State v. Rice, No. 3431.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSTILWELL, J.
Citation559 S.E.2d 360,348 S.C. 417
Decision Date20 December 2001
Docket NumberNo. 3431.
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Paul A. RICE, Appellant.

348 S.C. 417
559 S.E.2d 360

The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Paul A. RICE, Appellant

No. 3431.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard November 6, 2001.

Decided December 20, 2001.

Rehearing Denied February 22, 2002.


348 S.C. 418
Glenn Walters, of Orangeburg, for appellant

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Robert E. Bogan and Assistant Attorney General Tracey C. Green, both of State Grand Jury, all of Columbia, for respondent.

STILWELL, J.

Paul A. Rice appeals his convictions for trafficking in crack cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in crack cocaine, arguing his prosecution was barred by S.C.Code Annotated section 44-53-410 (1985). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

A federal grand jury indicted Rice on charges that he possessed crack cocaine with the intent to distribute and that he conspired with others to do the same. After a district court dismissed the charges with prejudice for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, the State Grand Jury indicted him on these charges which evolve from the same facts as the federal indictments.1 A jury convicted Rice as charged and he was sentenced to two concurrent twenty-five year terms.

DISCUSSION

Rice argues that under section 44-53-410, the dismissal of his federal charges barred his prosecution in state court.

348 S.C. 419
Although he did not raise this issue in the trial court he asserts we may address it because it involves subject matter jurisdiction. See Brown v. State, 343 S.C. 342, 346, 540 S.E.2d 846, 848-49 (2001) (issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal). We conclude the statute in question does not involve subject matter jurisdiction and thus Rice's issue is not preserved for our review

Section 44-53-410 is entitled "Prosecution in another jurisdiction shall be bar to prosecution" and provides:

If a violation of this article is a violation of a Federal law or the law of another state, the conviction or acquittal under Federal law or the law of another state for the same act is a bar to prosecution in this State.

S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-410 (1985).

This court has previously jointly analyzed claims based on this statute and double jeopardy, finding the issues "closely intertwined." State v. Harris, 342 S.C. 191, 198, 535 S.E.2d 652, 655 (Ct.App.2000). However, the precise issue Rice now raises was not addressed in Harris. A claim of double jeopardy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • The State v. Harmon, Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-080
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 24, 2011
    ...294 (indicating concession to the admission of evidence waives any direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting issues not raised to the trial court are not preserved for appellate review). AFFIRMED.1 ......
  • State v. Lowder, 2007-UP-007
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 11, 2007
    ...(1991) (observing a contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve alleged errors for review on direct appeal); State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 559 S.E.2d 360 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating as a general rule that all errors not involving subject matter jurisdiction must be raised and rul......
  • State v. Harmon, 2011-UP-080
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 24, 2011
    ...294 (indicating concession to the admission of evidence waives any direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting issues not raised to the trial court are not preserved for appellate review). AFFIRMED. [......
  • In re Clinton P., 2005-UP-220
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 24, 2005
    ...argue the allegations were sufficient under § 16-3-655(2), it cannot raise that argument for the first time on appeal. See State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding an argument not raised to the trial court is not preserved for appellate review). Additio......
4 cases
  • The State v. Harmon, Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-080
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 24, 2011
    ...294 (indicating concession to the admission of evidence waives any direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting issues not raised to the trial court are not preserved for appellate review). AFFIRMED.1 ......
  • State v. Lowder, 2007-UP-007
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 11, 2007
    ...(1991) (observing a contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve alleged errors for review on direct appeal); State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 559 S.E.2d 360 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating as a general rule that all errors not involving subject matter jurisdiction must be raised and rul......
  • State v. Harmon, 2011-UP-080
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 24, 2011
    ...294 (indicating concession to the admission of evidence waives any direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting issues not raised to the trial court are not preserved for appellate review). AFFIRMED. [......
  • In re Clinton P., 2005-UP-220
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 24, 2005
    ...argue the allegations were sufficient under § 16-3-655(2), it cannot raise that argument for the first time on appeal. See State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding an argument not raised to the trial court is not preserved for appellate review). Additio......

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