Terrence M., In Interest of, No. 2279

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCURETON; CONNOR, J., and HOWARD
Citation317 S.C. 212,452 S.E.2d 626
PartiesIn the Interest of TERRENCE M., a minor under the age of 17 years, Appellant. . Heard
Decision Date01 November 1994
Docket NumberNo. 2279

Page 626

452 S.E.2d 626
317 S.C. 212
In the Interest of TERRENCE M., a minor under the age of 17
years, Appellant.
No. 2279.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Nov. 1, 1994.
Decided Dec. 12, 1994.

[317 S.C. 213] Asst. Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen., Alexandria B. Skinner, Columbia, and Sol. Randolph Murdaugh, III, Hampton, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

Appellant, a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for the commission of second degree arson, and committed to the custody of the South Carolina Department of Youth Services (DYS) for an indeterminate period not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. He appeals. We vacate the adjudication.

The pre-printed juvenile petition charged the appellant with violation of S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-110 (1976). The petition did not specify a degree of arson, but it is undisputed that the charge was for second degree arson, that being the willful and malicious burning of a dwelling house under S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-110(B) (1985). At the close of the evidence, the appellant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that, as a matter of law, an unoccupied mobile home is not a "dwelling house" as required for second degree arson and, at most, the evidence indicated third degree arson [i.e., § 16-11-110(C) ]. To avoid the "dwelling house" issue, Judge Fanning found the appellant had violated § 16-11-120 as a lesser included offense of § 16-11-110. The General Assembly repealed § 16-11-120 approximately nine and

Page 627

one half years before the offense alleged in this case. See Act No. 449, § 4, 1982 S.C.Acts 2526 (eff. June [317 S.C. 214] 9, 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Act). 1 No one raised this "repealed statute" problem at trial, nor in any of the subsequent proceedings related to this matter.

On appeal, the appellant never mentions this "repealed statute" problem; he argues only that an unoccupied mobile home is not a dwelling place. The State notes the repeal of § 16-11-120, but it argues that Judge Fanning implicitly corrected this mistake in his written orders and during a subsequent hearing by finding the appellant guilty of second degree arson. Upon our review of the record, we find no indication that Judge Fanning ever realized or corrected this "repealed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • In re Jason T., No. 3164.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 22, 2000
    ...and may be raised sua sponte by the court. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362, 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998); see also In re Terrence M., 317 S.C. 212, 215, 452 S.E.2d 626, 627 3. We recognize that juvenile delinquency proceedings in family court do not require presenting an indictment to a gr......
  • State v. Sims, Appellate Case No. 2015-000721
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 18, 2018
    ...is not unlimited. It does not include, for instance, the power to convict someone of a statute no longer in effect, In re Terrence M. , 317 S.C. 212, 214, 452 S.E.2d 626, 627 (Ct. App. 1994), or of a nonexistent offense. Whitner v. State , 328 S.C. 1, 5, 492 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1997). Sims tie......
  • The State v. Phillips, No. 4833.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 4, 2011
    ...not less than one nor more than ten years. S.C.Code Ann. § 16–11–120 (1976) (repealed 1982). This court's opinion in In Re Terrence M., 317 S.C. 212, 214 n. 1, 452 S.E.2d 626, 627 n. 1 (Ct.App.1994), explained how the General Assembly restructured the arson statutes in 1982: Prior to the 19......
  • State v. Sutton, No. 2895.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 26, 1998
    ...a conviction because violation of a repealed statute is "no longer among the category of crimes under our law"); cf. In re Terrence M., 317 S.C. 212, 452 S.E.2d 626 (Ct.App.1994) (holding a court is without jurisdiction to convict a defendant of a statutory offense when the underlying statu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • In re Jason T., No. 3164.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 22, 2000
    ...and may be raised sua sponte by the court. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362, 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998); see also In re Terrence M., 317 S.C. 212, 215, 452 S.E.2d 626, 627 3. We recognize that juvenile delinquency proceedings in family court do not require presenting an indictment to a gr......
  • State v. Sims, Appellate Case No. 2015-000721
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 18, 2018
    ...is not unlimited. It does not include, for instance, the power to convict someone of a statute no longer in effect, In re Terrence M. , 317 S.C. 212, 214, 452 S.E.2d 626, 627 (Ct. App. 1994), or of a nonexistent offense. Whitner v. State , 328 S.C. 1, 5, 492 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1997). Sims tie......
  • The State v. Phillips, No. 4833.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 4, 2011
    ...not less than one nor more than ten years. S.C.Code Ann. § 16–11–120 (1976) (repealed 1982). This court's opinion in In Re Terrence M., 317 S.C. 212, 214 n. 1, 452 S.E.2d 626, 627 n. 1 (Ct.App.1994), explained how the General Assembly restructured the arson statutes in 1982: Prior to the 19......
  • State v. Sutton, No. 2895.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 26, 1998
    ...a conviction because violation of a repealed statute is "no longer among the category of crimes under our law"); cf. In re Terrence M., 317 S.C. 212, 452 S.E.2d 626 (Ct.App.1994) (holding a court is without jurisdiction to convict a defendant of a statutory offense when the underlying statu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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