Adams v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Adams v. State

DecidedJune 22, 2009

Docket2009-UP-345

StatusUnpublished

This text of Adams v. State (Adams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Charles Adams, Respondent,

v.

The State, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-345
Submitted June 1, 2009 Filed June 22, 2009
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled September 18, 2009

Affirmed

Michael J. O'Sullivan, of Conway, for Appellant.

Gregory Scott Bellamy, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The State appeals the circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss Charles Adams's appeal for failure to provide sufficient notice of appeal to the magistrate. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-5-340 (1976) (providing that the circuit court has jurisdiction to "hear appeals from magistrates' courts . . . to the court of general sessions and the court of common pleas, upon notice as required by law being given for the hearing of such appeals"); S.C. Code Ann. § 18-3-30 (1985) (providing that to perfect an appeal from a decision of the magistrates' court, the appellant must "within ten days after sentence, serve notice of appeal upon the magistrate who tried the case, stating the grounds upon which the appeal is founded"); See Ramage v. Ramage, 283 S.C. 239, 244, 322 S.E.2d 22, 25 (Ct. App. 1984) (finding an appellate court may consider a vague or general exception if the exception is reasonably clear from the appellant's arguments); Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 464, 319 S.E.2d 707, 716 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The standard which guides [an appellate court] is whether, despite the improperly framed exception, the issue sought to be raised is reasonably clear to [the appellate court] and the adverse party.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS and LOCKEMY, JJ., and Cureton, A.J., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Charles Adams, Respondent,

v.

The State, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-345
Submitted June 1, 2009 Filed June 22, 2009
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled September 18, 2009

Affirmed

Michael J. O'Sullivan, of Conway, for Appellant.

Gregory Scott Bellamy, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The State appeals the circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss Charles Adams's appeal for failure to provide sufficient notice of appeal to the magistrate. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-5-340 (1976) (providing that the circuit court has jurisdiction to "hear appeals from magistrates' courts . . . to the court of general sessions and the court of common pleas, upon notice as required by law being given for the hearing of such appeals"); S.C. Code Ann. § 18-3-30 (1985) (providing that to perfect an appeal from a decision of the magistrates' court, the appellant must "within ten days after sentence, serve notice of appeal upon the magistrate who tried the case, stating the grounds upon which the appeal is founded"); See Ramage v. Ramage, 283 S.C. 239, 244, 322 S.E.2d 22, 25 (Ct. App. 1984) (finding an appellate court may consider a vague or general exception if the exception is reasonably clear from the appellant's arguments); Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 464, 319 S.E.2d 707, 716 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The standard which guides [an appellate court] is whether, despite the improperly framed exception, the issue sought to be raised is reasonably clear to [the appellate court] and the adverse party.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS and LOCKEMY, JJ., and Cureton, A.J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Adams v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-scctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack