Broom v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Broom v. State

569 S.E.2d 336, 351 S.C. 219, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 139

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 12, 2002

Docket25511

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 569 S.E.2d 336 (Broom v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broom v. State, 569 S.E.2d 336, 351 S.C. 219, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 139 (S.C. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIUM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari following the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and affirm the order of the PCR judge.

Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. He contends that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the armed robbery charge because the indictment failed to allege that he intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

The armed robbery indictment alleged that petitioner did while armed with a deadly weapon, to wit: a pistol, feloniously take from the person or presence of employees by means of force or intimidation goods or monies of Freidman’s Jewelers....

Robbery is the felonious or unlawful taking of personal property of any value from the person of another, or in the person’s presence, by violence or putting the person in fear. State v. Bland, 318 S.C. 315, 457 S.E.2d 611 (1995). Armed robbery is a robbery while armed with a deadly weapon or while the robber alleges, by actions or words, that he is armed *221 with a deadly weapon which a person present during the commission of the robbery reasonably believes to be a deadly weapon. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-330(A) (Supp.2001).

There is no requirement that an armed robbery indictment contain an allegation of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. In Kerrigan v. State, 304 S.C. 561, 406 S.E.2d 160 (1991), this Court stated that larceny is the felonious taking of the goods of another without the consent of the other. The Court went on to state that an intent by the offender to permanently deprive the owner of possession by converting the property to the offender’s own use is implicit in the definition of larceny. Id. Similarly, the intent to permanently deprive is also implicit in the definition of armed robbery.

The indictment in this case clearly defines armed robbery and apprised petitioner of the charge against him. Therefore, the circuit court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the armed robbery charge.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIUM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari following the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and affirm the order of the PCR judge.

Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. He contends that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the armed robbery charge because the indictment failed to allege that he intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

The armed robbery indictment alleged that petitioner did while armed with a deadly weapon, to wit: a pistol, feloniously take from the person or presence of employees by means of force or intimidation goods or monies of Freidman’s Jewelers....

Robbery is the felonious or unlawful taking of personal property of any value from the person of another, or in the person’s presence, by violence or putting the person in fear. State v. Bland, 318 S.C. 315, 457 S.E.2d 611 (1995). Armed robbery is a robbery while armed with a deadly weapon or while the robber alleges, by actions or words, that he is armed *221 with a deadly weapon which a person present during the commission of the robbery reasonably believes to be a deadly weapon. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-330(A) (Supp.2001).

There is no requirement that an armed robbery indictment contain an allegation of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. In Kerrigan v. State, 304 S.C. 561, 406 S.E.2d 160 (1991), this Court stated that larceny is the felonious taking of the goods of another without the consent of the other. The Court went on to state that an intent by the offender to permanently deprive the owner of possession by converting the property to the offender’s own use is implicit in the definition of larceny. Id. Similarly, the intent to permanently deprive is also implicit in the definition of armed robbery.

The indictment in this case clearly defines armed robbery and apprised petitioner of the charge against him. Therefore, the circuit court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the armed robbery charge.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 S.E.2d 336, 351 S.C. 219, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broom-v-state-sc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack