State v. Sroka, 20331
| Decision Date | 21 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 20331,20331 |
| Citation | 230 S.E.2d 816,267 S.C. 664 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. James SROKA, Appellant. |
Barry Krell and Ray P. McClain, Charleston, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen. Joseph R. Barker and Robert N. Wells, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. Robert B. Wallace, Charleston, for respondent.
Appellant, James Sroka, and a codefendant were convicted of armed robbery of the manager of Doscher's Red and White Store in Charleston County, and each sentenced to prison terms. Only Sroka has appealed. Judgment is affirmed.
Appellant charges that the trial judge erred (1) in refusing to permit cross-examination of a key State's witness concerning the prior conviction of the witness for possession of stimulant drugs without a prescription; (2) in refusing to grant certain requested charges to the jury; (3) in refusing to grant a mistrial because of testimony concerning an alleged prejudicial declaration of the codefendant; and (4) in allowing the entire trial transcript to be included in the Transcript of Record.
We affirm because the guilt of the appellant is conclusively shown by the record and any alleged error could not have been prejudicial. Any doubt about the correctness of this conclusion is eliminated by the admission of appellant in open court, after conviction and during the pre-sentence inquiry by the trial judge, that he had participated in the robbery with a sawed-off shotgun. Further review of the record, therefore, is rendered unnecessary. State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 180 S.E.2d 888; State v. Miller, 266 S.C. 409, 223 S.E.2d 774.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Warden of Kershaw Corr. Inst.
...to prove the guilt of the accused, the appellate court must find the casewas properly submitted to the jury); State v. Sroka, 267 S.C. 664, 665, 230 S.E.2d 816, 817 (1976) ("Any doubt about the correctness of [affirming the appellant's conviction] is eliminated by the admission of appellant......
-
State v. Passaro
...some future case, it is not in doubt here as Passaro pled guilty below and confirmed his guilt before this Court. See State v. Sroka, 267 S.C. 664, 230 S.E.2d 816 (1976) (affirming guilty verdict by jury based on overwhelming evidence presented at trial and later admission of guilt by defen......
-
The State v. Wiley
...better than what I was doing. I had numerous opportunities to stop. I just want to apologize to the Court.” See State v. Sroka, 267 S.C. 664, 665, 230 S.E.2d 816, 817 (1976) (holding appellant's guilt was conclusively shown by the record and any doubt about correctness of guilt was eliminat......
-
Whetsell v. State, 21449
...review of a trial error is unnecessary where a defendant admits in open court after his conviction that he is guilty. State v. Sroka, 267 S.C. 664, 230 S.E.2d 816 (1976). Here, respondents not only reiterated their guilt at the post conviction hearing, but stated they would plead guilty aga......