State v. Mathis

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

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.

Donald Mathis,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

John W. Kittredge, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2004-UP-571

Submitted November 1, 2004 – Filed November
15, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Robert M.
Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  A Greenville
County grand jury indicted Donald Mathis in February 2002 for criminal sexual
conduct with a minor in the first degree.  Following a two-day trial, Mathis
was convicted and sentenced to a term of thirty years.  On appeal, Mathis argues
for the first time that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction “because
the indictment did not sufficiently identify the alleged victim.”  The indictment
read in pertinent part: “[t]hat DONALD RAY MATHIS did in Greenville County,
on about the 19th day of May, 2001, commit a sexual battery on G.S.H., who was
less than eleven years of age.”  Thus, Mathis avers the indictment is ineffective
because it only contains the victim’s initials and not her full name.  We disagree.

Section 17-19-90 of the South
Carolina Code states that “[e]very objection to any indictment for any defect
apparent on the face thereof shall be taken by demurrer or on motion to quash
such indictment before the jury shall be sworn and not afterwards.”  S.C. Code
Ann. § 17-19-90 (2003).  It is beyond dispute that the alleged defect in the
current case was apparent on the face of the indictment, yet Mathis failed to
raise the matter to the trial court before the jury was sworn.  In Thompson
v. State, 357 S.C. 192, 593 S.E.2d 139 (2004), our supreme court held that
alleged defects in an indictment concerning a victim’s name do not raise jurisdictional
concerns and failure to object to such “defects” pursuant to section 17-19-90
results in waiver.  Id. at 196, 593 S.E.2d at 141.  Accordingly, this
issue is not preserved for our review.  

AFFIRMED.
[1]

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

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.