Young v. State, 19501
| Decision Date | 17 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 19501,19501 |
| Citation | 192 S.E.2d 212,259 S.C. 383 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Perry Lee YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Edward A. Harter, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen., Emmet H. Clair and Robert M. Ariail, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant, represented at the time by retained counsel, was tried at the June 1969 term of the General Sessions Court for Richland County under an indictment containing two counts, one charging robbery and the other grand larceny. He was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to a term of five (5) years, under which he is now being held. His subsequent appeal to this Court, prosecuted by appointed counsel, was dismissed on December 3, 1970, upon the ground that none of the questions argued on appeal had been timely raised in the course of his trial in the lower court. State v. Young, 255 S.C. 198, 178 S.E.2d 142. The matter is now here on appeal from an order of the lower court dismissing appellant's subsequent application for post-conviction relief.
Appellant seeks in this proceeding either an order of acquittal or a new trial upon the grounds that (1) the verdict of the jury was inconsistent; (2) one of the State's witnesses (officer E. H. Sinnott) committed perjury; and (3) his retained counsel failed to render effective and adequate representation during the trial.
Appellant first contends that the verdict of the jury was inconsistent. The indictment charged appellant with the crimes of robbery and larceny. The charges arose out of the same facts or transaction. The jury returned a verdict of 'guilty of robbery' with no specific finding as to the separate charge of larceny. Appellant now contends that a verdict of 'guilty of robbery', with no mention of the separate count charging larceny, was, in effect, a finding of not guilty as to the latter charge. It is argued that such separate findings are inconsistent and the verdict of guilty as to robbery should be set aside.
Robbery is larceny from the person or immediate presence of another by violence or intimidation. Dukes v. State, 248 S.C. 227, 149 S.E.2d 598. It is basically larceny compounded or aggravated by force used in the taking of property from the person or in the presence of another. 2 Wharton Criminal Law and Procedure, Section 547. While larceny is included in the charge of robbery, a taking by violence or intimidation is not an element of the crime of larceny.
Therefore, an indictment charging larceny and robbery includes larceny as an element of both offenses; and a verdict finding appellant guilty of robbery, of necessity, carried with it a finding that he was guilty of larceny. Such a verdict was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph v. State
...of robbery); State v. Brown, supra (larceny, without indicating whether petit or grand, is lesser of robbery); Young v. State, 259 S.C. 383, 192 S.E.2d 212 (1972) (grand larceny is lesser-included of robbery). See also State v. Ziegler, 274 S.C. 6, 260 S.E.2d 182 (1979) (in dicta, Court sta......
-
People v. Wakeford
...v. Smith, 268 N.C. 167, 172-173, 150 S.E.2d 194 (1966); State v. Trujillo, 7 Or.App. 236, 238, 489 P.2d 977 (1971); Young v. State, 259 S.C. 383, 386, 192 S.E.2d 212 (1972); Watson v. State, 207 Tenn. 581, 584, 341 S.W.2d 728 (1960); Holland v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.App. 384, 389, 10 S.W.2d 561......
-
State v. Parker
...of robbery); State v. Brown, supra (larceny, without indicating whether petit or grand, is lesser of robbery); Young v. State, 259 S.C. 383, 192 S.E.2d 212 (1972) (grand larceny is lesser-included of robbery). See also State v. Ziegler, 274 S.C. 6, 260 S.E.2d 182 (1979) (in dicta, we stated......
-
State v. Parker
...631 (1986); State v. Lawson, 279 S.C. 266, 305 S.E.2d 249 (1983); State v. Brown, 274 S.C. 48, 260 S.E.2d 719 (1979); Young v. State, 259 S.C. 383, 192 S.E.2d 212 (1972). 10. S.C. Const. art. V, § 9 ("The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind the Court of Appeals as 11. See 73 Am.Jur.2d......
-
The untouchables: the impact of South Carolina's new judicial selection system on the South Carolina Supreme Court, 1997-2003.
...Joseph v. State, 571 S.E.2d 280 (S.C. 2002). Together, these cases overrule State v. Lawson, 305 S.E.2d 249 (S.C. 1983); Young v. State, 192 S.E.2d 212 (S.C. 1972); State v. Ziegler, 260 S.E.2d 182 (S.C. 1979). See Parker, 571 S.E.2d at 290; Joseph, 571 S.E.2d at (70) The value of the goods......