State v. Irvin

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

Timothy Irvin, Appellant,

v.

The State, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-282

Submitted April 1, 2005 – Filed April 20, 2005

AFFIRMED

Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Attorney General Tracey C. Green, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Timothy Irvin was indicted for criminal conspiracy and misconduct in office.  Irvin appeals his conviction for misconduct in office, arguing:  1) the trial court lacked valid subject matter jurisdiction due to deficiencies in the indictment; and 2) the jury returned inconsistent verdicts. 

We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  As to Issue I:  State v. Gentry, Op. No. 25949 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed March 7, 2005) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 11 at 37) (holding circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction to try criminal matters and questions of the sufficiency of an indictment not affecting the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal).  As to Issue II: State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 383, 401 S.E.2d 146, 150 (1991) (abolishing the rule prohibiting inconsistent verdicts).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur. 

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