State v. Scates
| Decision Date | 08 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | 16056. |
| Citation | 46 S.E.2d 693,212 S.C. 150 |
| Parties | STATE v. SCATES. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
H. R. Swink, of Gaffney, and Sam N. Burts, of Spartanburg, for appellant.
Samuel R. Watt, Sol, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
James Scates was convicted of the crime of armed robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 25 years. He prosecutes this appeal on the ground that the sentence of the court was unreasonable and constituted an abuse of discretion.
Appellant a lifelong resident of the county of Cherokee, is an unmarried white man of the age of 21 years. In the late afternoon of October, 1946 or 1947 (the record does not disclose which year), he entered the Limestone Mills Store and stated that he wished to buy some cigarettes and cigars. He was waited on by the clerk, Mr. Pierce, while the manager Mr. O. R. Wells, was in his office in the rear of the building. It was after closing time when this sale was completed, and appellant left the store. Soon thereafter Mr. Pierce left for his home a short distance away, leaving Mr. Wells alone in the office. Shortly after Pierce left, Scates returned with a confederate, Jerry Mahaffey. He told Wells that he wished to borrow $2. When this statement was made, Mahaffey held an automatic pistol in his hand pointed at Wells, and told him to 'take it easy * * * If you will obey all orders and not try any funny stuff, it will be easier.' Wells remained seated at his desk, and offered no resistance. Scates then opened the vault in the office and demanded to know where the money was. He had a bag in his hand which he filled with money taken from the vault, amounting to $5,263. While robbing the vault he told Wells that if the latter had not refused him a loan of $50 two weeks before, the robbery would not have occurred. After rifling the vault, Scates demanded the keys to Wells' automobile which was parked in front of the store Wells took the keys from his pocket and handed them to appellant. While all of this was going on, Mahaffey still held the gun on Wells. Scates and Mahaffey then ordered Wells to enter the vault, telling him that tey would report where he was some time during the night so that some one could come and get him out. Wells was forced to go into the vault and then both doors--the inner and the outer--were closed and bolted. In testifying, Wells said: 'I thought I was left there to smother to death.'
Two or three men on the outside of the store saw Scates and Mahaffey come out of the store and drive away in Wells' car, and saw Scates carrying a bag when he entered the car with Mahaffey; Scates was driving. Evidently the suspicions of these men were aroused, because they went to the home of Pierce, and in consequence of what they told him he returned to the store and entered the office of Mr. Wells. Not finding him there, Pierce called him, and heard a noise on the inside of the vault; whereupon he unbolted the doors and released him. Both Wells and Pierce testified that Scates and Mahaffey appeared to be sober, and not under the influence of whiskey.
The following morning, the appellant, Scates, was discovered behind a farmer's barn some miles away, and later the car was recovered. So far as the record shows, Mahaffey has never been apprehended. Nor does it appear that any of the money was recovered.
The appellant took the stand and gave his version of the affair, which does not differ from that given by Wells and Pierce except that he laid the entire blame upon Mahaffey. He said that Mahaffey was the leading actor in the whole matter. His testimony along this line was weak and inconclusive, and wholly unconvincing. He stated that the pistol was his, but that he had handed it to Mahaffey before they entered the store; and that throughout the robbery he was acting under the direction of Mahaffey. He tried to give the impression that he was under Mahaffey's domination.
Appellant admitted that he took the money from the vault and got the automobile keys from Wells, but claims that Mahaffey actually closed the double doors after Wells entered the vault. They fled from the scene in Wells car with Scates driving. After going some miles they stopped at Mahaffey's house, but seeing another car approaching and fearing pursuit, they abandoned the car and continued their flight on foot. According to Scates, Mahaffey ran away with all of the money. He said that the robbery was planned after they had taken several drinks of liquor, and that it would not have happened if he had not been drunk. During the whole affair no blows were struck, and there was no physical violence. Wells acted through fear and intimidation, and offered no resistance, while Mahaffey held the gun on him.
Armed robbery, from the earliest time, has always been regarded as a crime of the gravest character. At common law, the penalty for robbery was death. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steadman
...is not the result of partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive. State v. Phillips, 215 S.C. 314, 54 S.E.2d 901; State v. Scates, 212 S.C. 150, 46 S.E.2d 693; State v. Kimbrough, 212 S.C. 348, 46 S.E.2d State v. Greogry, 198 S.C. 98, 16 S.E.2d 532. The issue then is: Was the impos......
-
Romanus v. Biggs
... ... loans were secured by the credit of the defendant, M. Stede ... Stackhouse, and certain State warehouse receipts for various ... quantities of liquor in cases; that the said security is in ... procees of liquidation subject to the orders of ... judicial discretion did not do so arbitrarily or for reasons ... clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Scates ... ...
-
State v. Phillips
... ... ... Moreover, the imposition of sentence is the responsibility of ... the trial judge rather than ours. He is in far better ... position to decide upon a proper punishment, State v ... Brandon, 210 S.C. 495, 43 S.E.2d 449; State v ... Scates, 212 S.C. 150, 46 S.E.2d 693; and his conclusion ... will be affirmed except in very rare instances, as pointed ... out in State v. Kimbrough, supra. We quote from the opinion ... in that case, 212 S.C. at page 357, 46 S.E.2d at page 277: ... 'It is perhaps unnecessary to add that only under ... ...
-
State v. Huffstetler
... ... There were two ... offenses of grand larceny, of which appellant admitted her ... guilt. The sentences which aggregated thirty months were well ... within the statutory limit of the judge's discretion. Our ... last authority upon the subject is State v. Scates, ... 212 S.C. 150, 46 S.E.2d 693, where it was said, upon citation ... of earlier authorities, that this Court has no jurisdiction ... to reverse a sentence as excessive when it is within the ... limits prescribed by law as in the discretion of the trial ... judge, and is not the result of ... ...