State v. Pfeiffer

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Appellant,

v.

Frederick Scott Pfeiffer, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000211

Appeal From State Grand Jury
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-130
Heard December 11, 2017 – Filed March 28, 2018

AFFIRMED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Deputy Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, and
Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Ralph Gleaton, of Gleaton Wyatt, PA, and William G.
Yarborough, III, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212, 215, 656 S.E.2d 371, 373 (2008) ("It
is a long-standing rule of law that a trial judge is without jurisdiction to consider a
criminal matter once the term of court during which judgment was entered
expires."); Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP (permitting post-trial motions to be made within
ten days after the imposition of the sentence); see generally Collins Music Co. v.
IGT, 353 S.C. 559, 564, 579 S.E.2d 524, 526 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining
successive post-trial motions are permitted in civil cases if the successive motion
seeks "relief on issues coming to light as a result of an order following an initial
post-trial motion that alters or amends the judgment").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.