Brown v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Brown v. State

DecidedJune 6, 2005

Docket2005-MO-024

StatusUnpublished

This text of Brown v. State (Brown 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

Brown v. State, (S.C. 2005).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Kelvin Lamont Brown, Respondent,

v.

State of South Carolina, Petitioner.

Appeal From Greenwood County
Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-MO-024
Submitted May 18, 2005 Filed June 6, 2005

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

PER CURIAM: Reversed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dupree, 354 S.C. 676, 583 S.E.2d 437 (Ct. App. 2003)(finding no conflict between § 44-53-375(C)(1)(b) and § 44-53-470 for purposes of sentence enhancement); Patterson v. State, 359 S.C. 115, 119, 597 S.E.2d 150, 152 (2004)(holding§§ 44-53-375(A) and 44-53-470 are not in conflict); State v. Gentry, Op. No. 25949 (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 11 at 37)(S.C. Sup.Ct. filed March 7, 2005)(holding indictments are not documents required to confer subject matter jurisdiction). State v. Scriven, 339 S.C. 333, 337, 529 S.E.2d 71, 73 (Ct. App. 2000)(holding sentence enhancements upon conviction for a second or greater offense are not elements of the offense). We reverse the grant of PCR and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Kelvin Lamont Brown, Respondent,

v.

State of South Carolina, Petitioner.

Appeal From Greenwood County
Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-MO-024
Submitted May 18, 2005 Filed June 6, 2005

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

PER CURIAM: Reversed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dupree, 354 S.C. 676, 583 S.E.2d 437 (Ct. App. 2003)(finding no conflict between § 44-53-375(C)(1)(b) and § 44-53-470 for purposes of sentence enhancement); Patterson v. State, 359 S.C. 115, 119, 597 S.E.2d 150, 152 (2004)(holding§§ 44-53-375(A) and 44-53-470 are not in conflict); State v. Gentry, Op. No. 25949 (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 11 at 37)(S.C. Sup.Ct. filed March 7, 2005)(holding indictments are not documents required to confer subject matter jurisdiction). State v. Scriven, 339 S.C. 333, 337, 529 S.E.2d 71, 73 (Ct. App. 2000)(holding sentence enhancements upon conviction for a second or greater offense are not elements of the offense). We reverse the grant of PCR and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brown v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-sc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack