Wheeler v. State, No. 18483

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtLEGGE; MOSS
Citation247 S.C. 393,147 S.E.2d 627
PartiesDonald WHEELER, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina et al., Respondents.
Decision Date31 March 1966
Docket NumberNo. 18483

Page 627

147 S.E.2d 627
247 S.C. 393
Donald WHEELER, Sr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina et al., Respondents.
No. 18483.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
March 31, 1966.

[247 S.C. 394]

Page 628

J. Lewis Cromer, Columbia, for appellant.

[247 S.C. 395] Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Edward B. Latimer, Columbia, for respondents.

[247 S.C. 397] LEGGE, Acting Justice.

This is an appeal from a circuit court order discharging a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant, a prisoner in the South Carolina State Penitentiary, based his petition for the writ upon the single ground that by reason of his having been held prisoner in the Greenville County jail for more than eight months between his arrest in the latter part of February, 1964, and his trial early in November of that year, he had been denied

Page 629

the right to speedy trial guaranteed by Section 18 of Article [247 S.C. 398] 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina. Upon this petition the Honorable John Grimball, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, issued the writ on March 6, 1965; and the respondents having made return thereto alleging that the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced in accordance with due process of law and without abridgment of his rights, the matter was heard before Judge Grimball on March 13, 1965. By his order of March 30, 1965, he discharged the writ and remanded the petitioner to custody.

The facts, as stated in the order under appeal, were as follows:

At the March, 1964, term of the Court of General Sessions for Greenville County, appellant and several other persons were indicted for housebreaking, safe-cracking and larceny, and also, by a separate indictment, for possession of tools to be employed in a crime (Code, 1962, Section 16--302). Thereafter, the Solicitor was informed by two attorneys of the Greenville County bar that they had been employed to represent the defendant Wheeler (appellant here) and certain other of the defendants named in the two indictments. No demand for a trial was made by these attorneys. Subsequently, on September 4, 1964, two other defendants, also represented by the same counsel, pleaded guilty to safe-cracking, the State agreeing to recommendation to mercy, and they were thereupon sentenced by the Honorable Frank Eppes, then presiding in that circuit. At that time the Solicitor was notified by said attorneys that they were withdrawing from the representation of Wheeler on both the indictment for housebreaking, safe-cracking and larceny and the indictment for possession of tools to be employed in a crime. Thereafter, prior to the opening of the October, 1964, term, Wheeler was brought before the Honorable James B. Morrison, who was to preside at that term, and he appointed two other attorneys of the Greenville County bar to represent Wheeler. Upon the call of the case for trial, during the first week of the October term, Wheeler's counsel moved for a continuance upon the ground that his [247 S.C. 399] wife, a witness on his behalf, could not be present during that week. Judge Morrison granted the motion and continued the case until November 4, which was in the second week of the term. On November 4, after a jury had been drawn and sworn, and after the first witness for the State had testified, the defendant Wheeler entered a plea of guilty to the charge of having possession of tools to be employed in a crime, and the State agreed to nol pros the case pending against him for housebreaking, safe-cracking and larceny, which was done on the following day. Upon this plea, Judge Morrison sentenced him to imprisonment for four years. From this trial and sentence no appeal was taken.

At the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • State v. Langford, No. 27195.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 20, 2012
    ...482]a reasonable time in which to prepare its case; it simply means a trial without unreasonable and unnecessary delay.” Wheeler v. State, 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966). Because of the vagaries of this unavoidably ad hoc inquiry, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it “c......
  • State v. Hunsberger, Appellate Case No. 2015–000083
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 12, 2016
    ...without unreasonable and unnecessary delay. State v. Langford , 400 S.C. 421, 441, 735 S.E.2d 471, 482 (2012) (quoting Wheeler v. State , 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966) ). The remedy for a speedy trial violation is dismissal of the charges. Langford , 400 S.C. at 442, 735 S.E......
  • State v. Palmer, Appellate Case No. 2013–000700.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 24, 2016
    ...unreasonable and unnecessary delay.’ " State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 441, 735 S.E.2d 471, 481–82 (2012) (quoting Wheeler v. State, 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966) ). "There is no universal test to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been vi......
  • State v. Barnes, Appellate Case No. 2017-002140
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2020
    ...it simply means a trial without unreasonable and unnecessary delay.’ " Id. at 441, 735 S.E.2d at 481–82 (quoting Wheeler v. State , 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966) ). Therefore, "the determination that a defendant has been deprived of this right is not based on the p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • State v. Langford, No. 27195.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 20, 2012
    ...482]a reasonable time in which to prepare its case; it simply means a trial without unreasonable and unnecessary delay.” Wheeler v. State, 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966). Because of the vagaries of this unavoidably ad hoc inquiry, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it “c......
  • State v. Hunsberger, Appellate Case No. 2015–000083
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 12, 2016
    ...without unreasonable and unnecessary delay. State v. Langford , 400 S.C. 421, 441, 735 S.E.2d 471, 482 (2012) (quoting Wheeler v. State , 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966) ). The remedy for a speedy trial violation is dismissal of the charges. Langford , 400 S.C. at 442, 735 S.E......
  • State v. Palmer, Appellate Case No. 2013–000700.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 24, 2016
    ...unreasonable and unnecessary delay.’ " State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 441, 735 S.E.2d 471, 481–82 (2012) (quoting Wheeler v. State, 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966) ). "There is no universal test to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been vi......
  • State v. Barnes, Appellate Case No. 2017-002140
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2020
    ...it simply means a trial without unreasonable and unnecessary delay.’ " Id. at 441, 735 S.E.2d at 481–82 (quoting Wheeler v. State , 247 S.C. 393, 400, 147 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1966) ). Therefore, "the determination that a defendant has been deprived of this right is not based on the p......
  • 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