Summerall v. State
| Decision Date | 09 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21773,21773 |
| Citation | Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (S.C. 1982) |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | David Junior SUMMERALL, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Asst. Appellate Defender David W. Carpenter, of S. C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, and Public Defender J. Redmond Coyle, Pickens, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. William K. Moore and Donald J. Zelenka, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant pled guilty to three counts of receiving stolen goods. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of one year, two years and seven years, suspended upon the service of four years with five years probation and $1,000 restitution. This appeal is from denial, after a hearing, of Post-Conviction Relief. We affirm the guilty plea on the first count. We vacate the remaining pleas and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant was charged in three separate indictments for the three counts. The first indictment was presented to the grand jury and duly acted on by them. That indictment is not in issue here. The remaining two indictments were not presented to the grand jury.
Code of Laws of South Carolina Ann. §§ 17-23-120 to 140 (Supp.1981) require that a criminal defendant must sign a waiver of indictment before pleading guilty to an indictment which has not been presented to the grand jury. Through an administrative error, appellant never signed the waivers.
By their plain...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Gentry
...State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987). 28. State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325, 342 S.E.2d 597 (1986). 29. Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982). 30. State v. Langford, 223 S.C. 20, 73 S.E.2d 854 (1953). 31. State v. Hann, 196 S.C. 211, 12 S.E.2d 720 (1940). 32. St......
-
State v. Wilkes
...offense. State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992); State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325, 342 S.E.2d 597 (1986); Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982). A circuit court, therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction only if: (1) there has been an indictment which sufficien......
-
In re Jason T.
...Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362, 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998). Any waiver of presentment must be in writing. See Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982); see also S.C.Code Ann. §§ 17-23-130 to -140 (1985). For an indictment to be valid, it must state the offense with suffic......
-
State v. Clarkson
...to sign a written waiver of indictment before pleading guilty to an indictment not presented to the grand jury. Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 256, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982); see also Phillips v. State, 281 S.C. 41, 42, 314 S.E.2d 313, 314 (1984) ("By their plain language, §§ 17-23-130 and 1......
-
C. Classification of Offenses
...former, absent written waiver and the consent of the solicitor, as per S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-23-130, -140 (2003). See Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005). There are numerous cases challengi......
-
E. Jurisdiction
...was committed or a valid waiver of presentment of indictment. State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325, 342 S.E.2d 597 (1986); Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982). The provision does not mean a circuit court lacks jurisdiction unless it sits in the county in which the offense was ......
-
A. Procedural Considerations
...of the indictment and the concept of subject matter jurisdiction; i.e., a trial court's power to hear a charge. [124] State v. Summerall, 278 S.C. 255, 256, 294 S.E.2d 344, 344 (1982).[125] State v. McNeil, 314 S.C. 473, 445 S.E.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1994). In McNeil, the defendant was indicted ......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Sullivan, 277 S.C. 35, 282 S.E.2d 838 (1981)............................................................. 116-117 State v. Summerall, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982)............................................................. 235 State v. Sweat, 276 S.C. 448, 279 S.E.2d 375 (1981)........