State v. McColl

CourtListener 10138524Scctapp17 ott 2005

Testo completo

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.

Larry McColl, Appellant.

Appeal From Marlboro County

John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-554

Submitted October 1, 2005 – Filed October 17, 2005   

AFFIRMED

Acting Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, 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, Sr. Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In May 2003, Larry McColl pled guilty to several charges, including two counts of distribution of marijuana within a half mile of a school.  McColl’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, attaching to the brief a petition to be relieved as counsel stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded the appeal lacked merit.  This court denied the petition to be relieved and ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the plea court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept appellant’s guilty plea to two counts of distribution of marijuana within a half mile of a school where the indictments alleged distribution within the proximity of “St. Paul’s Kindergarten.”  We now affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 101, 610 S.E.2d 494, 499 (2005) “subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court and the sufficiency of the indictment are two distinct concepts … if an indictment is challenged as insufficient or defective, the defendant must raise that issue before the jury is sworn and not afterwards.” 

AFFIRMED.1

ANDERSON, HUFF, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.