Marvin J. LOCKE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent

Supreme Court of South Carolina2000-06-12No. No. 25146

341 S.C. 54533 S.E.2d 324

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the dismissal of the post-conviction relief application, holding that the indictment was sufficient to convey jurisdiction and properly alleged all essential elements of common law robbery, including asportation, through its description of the taking of property.

Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, arguing that his indictment for strong-arm robbery was jurisdictionally deficient because it failed to explicitly mention asportation, an essential element of common law robbery. He contended that without this allegation, the trial court lacked authority to try him for the offense. The court examined whether the indictment adequately conveyed the elements of the crime and the circumstances requiring defense. The court determined that the indictment's reference to the "taking of goods and/or monies from the person or presence of" the victim sufficiently alleged asportation, which under law requires only the slightest removal of property with criminal intent. Because the indictment provided the time, place, and manner of the alleged conduct and adequately informed the petitioner of what he must defend against, the court concluded the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an indictment must explicitly name asportation to charge common law robbery
Whether an indictment is jurisdictionally sufficient if it fails to allege an essential element of the offense
What constitutes adequate notice to a defendant of the crime charged

Procedural posture

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of a post-conviction relief judge's dismissal of his application challenging the sufficiency of his indictment for strong-arm robbery.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari on petitioner’s Question 1, dispense with further briefing, and affirm the PCR judge’s order. Certiorari is denied as to petitioner’s remaining Questions.

Petitioner was indicted for “strong arm robbery” in violation of S.C.Code Section 16-11-325 (Supp.1999). The text of the indictment read as follows:

The Defendant ... did in York County, on or about July 10,1996, assist and act together with others in the felonious taking of goods and/or monies from the person or presence of Calvin Burris, Jr., by means of force or intimidation, such goods and/or monies being described as follows: Approximately Two Thousand and NO/lOO ($2000.00) Dollars in U.S. Currency and a cellular telephone, with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of such goods and/or monies, all in violation of the Common Law of South Carolina, penalty provided under Section 16-11-325, Code of Laws of South Carolina, (1976), as amended.

Petitioner argues that the indictment fails to allege the essential elements of the common law robbery offense because the indictment does not mention asportation. Petitioner contends that because the indictment fails to allege the essential elements of the offense, the indictment is jurisdietionally deficient. Therefore, petitioner concludes, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to try him for common law robbery.

While petitioner did not raise this issue at his PCR hearing, subject matter jurisdiction issues may be raised at any time. See Weinhauer v. State, 334 S.C. 327, 513 S.E.2d 840 (1999) (issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal).

A circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction if: (1) there has been an indictment which sufficiently states the offense; (2) there has been a waiver of indictment; or (3) the charge is a lesser included charge of the crime charged in the indictment. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998). An indictment is sufficient to convey jurisdiction if it apprises the defendant of the elements of the offense intended to be charged and informs the defendant of the circumstances he must be prepared to defend. Granger v. State, 333 S.C. 2, 507 S.E.2d 322 (1998).

Here, the indictment gave the time, place, and manner of the events in which petitioner was accused of having participated. Therefore, the indictment was sufficient to inform petitioner of the circumstances which he would be called upon to defend. Moreover, petitioner’s argument notwithstanding, the indictment language alleges the substance of asportation when it reads, “taking of goods and/or monies from the person or presence of.” This is sufficient because asportation merely means the taking of an object with felonious intent. State v. Tindall, 213 S.C. 484, 50 S.E.2d 188 (1948) (the asportation of stolen property is ordinarily established by the slightest removal of the chattel with felonious intent).

Therefore, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to try petitioner for common law robbery. Accordingly, the order dismissing petitioner’s PCR application is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.