State v. Rice, No. 3431.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | STILWELL, J. |
| Citation | 559 S.E.2d 360,348 S.C. 417 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3431. |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Paul A. RICE, Appellant. |
348 S.C. 417
559 S.E.2d 360
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.
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.
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
-
The State v. Harmon, Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-080
...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
...(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
...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
...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......
-
The State v. Harmon, Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-080
...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
...(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
...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
...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......