State v. Vilorio

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

State of South Carolina, Respondent,

v.

Laurentino
Vilorio, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

 Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-195

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 6,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, for Appellant.

Attorney
General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney
General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M.
Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Laurentino Vilorio was convicted of committing a lewd
act on a minor and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment, suspended upon the
service of five years.  Vilorio appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing
the circuit court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment at trial
to expand the time frame of the offenses.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann.
§ 17-19-100 (2003) (permitting judicial amendment of an indictment to comply
with the proof offered at trial if the amendment does not change the nature of
the offense charged); State
v. Quarles, 261 S.C. 413,
417, 200 S.E.2d 384, 386 (1973) (requiring a showing of both prejudice and
abuse of discretion to reverse an amendment of the time frame in an
indictment); State v. Rush, 129 S.C. 43, 47, 123 S.E. 765, 766 (1924) (holding where
"time [is] not of the essence of the offense charged," amending the
time frame in an indictment does not change the nature of the offense); State
v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 101-02, 654 S.E.2d 849, 855 (Ct. App. 2007)
(finding time frame is not material to committing a lewd act on a minor and
enlarging the time frame of an indictment for this offense is not improper); State
v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108, 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding
an indictment is sufficient if it "inform[s] the accused of the charge
against him by listing the elements of the offense charged" and is "sufficiently
specific to protect the accused against double jeopardy"). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS,
and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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