State v. Brice

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Derrick L. Brice,       
Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-108

Submitted February 1, 2005 – Filed February
11, 2005

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender
Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot,
Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia;  and Solicitor
Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Derrick L. Brice appeals from his conviction for distribution
of crack cocaine arguing the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because the indictment failed to allege he “knowingly” distributed crack cocaine. 
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authority:  State
v. Gill, 355 S.C. 234, 584 S.E.2d 432 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding the “knowingly”
element is not an essential element of distribution of crack cocaine and is
not required to be alleged in the indictment to confer subject matter jurisdiction).

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.