Bozeman v. State

Proposed Opinion

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

Kenneth Bozeman, Appellant,

v.

The State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Fairfield County

 Paul E. Short, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-035

Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January
14, 2005

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney
General, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth
Bozeman appeals a circuit court order denying his writ of habeas corpus, which
alleged the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the solicitor
failed to sign the indictment.  We find no error in the trial court’s refusal
to grant Bozeman relief.  The general rule regarding the adequacy of an indictment
is that “[a]n indictment is sufficient if the offense is stated with sufficient
certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce,
and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may
plead an acquittal or conviction thereon.”  State v. Adams, 354 S.C.
361, 374, 580 S.E.2d 785, 791 (Ct. App. 2003).

AFFIRMED
[1]

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

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