Ex Parte Murray

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Ex Parte Murray

199 S.E.2d 718, 261 S.C. 255, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 245

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 19, 1973

Docket19696

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 199 S.E.2d 718 (Ex Parte Murray) 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

Ex Parte Murray, 199 S.E.2d 718, 261 S.C. 255, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 245 (S.C. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Bruce Murray, a fourteen year old male, the appellant herein, was charged in The Family Court of Richland County with committing the crime of disorderly conduct by the use of obscene or profane language in a public place, in violation of Section 16-558 of the Code, as amended.

When this case came on fo,r a hearing before The Honorable J. McNary Spigner, Judge of the Family Court of Richland County, the appellant moved to dismiss the charge upon the ground that the statute defining the crime of disorderly conduct is vague, indefinite, and overbroad. This motion was refused. The trial then proceeded and after the *256 taking of all of the testimony, the judge announced, “I am going to find Bruce Murray guilty and withhold disposition.” Thereafter, the trial judge issued a written order holding as a matter of law that the appellant was guilty and “disposition is withheld until further order.”

The appellant charges the trial judge with error in refusing to hold that Section 16-588 of the Code, as amended, defining the crime of disorderly conduct, is unconstitutionally vague, indefinite and overbroad. We are unable, at this time, to consider the question presented. This Court is confined to the consideration of questions presented after final judgment has been rendered. The appellant has never been sentenced and until he is sentenced there is no final judgment.

It is clear that this appeal, not being from a final judgment, under our decisions is premature and shquld be dismissed for that reason. Our cases so hold. State v. McKettrick, 13 S. C. 439; State v. Burbage, 51 S. C. 284, 28 S. E. 937; State v. Hughes, 56 S. C. 540, 35 S. E. 214; State v. Timmons, 68 S. C. 258, 47 S. E. 140; State v. Byars, 79 S. C. 174, 60 S. E. 448; State v. Turner, 118 S. C. 383, 110 S. E. 525; and State v. McMillan, 189 S. C. 444, 1 S. E. (2d) 626. See also 24 C. J. S. Criminal Law § 1649; and 4 Am. Jur. (2d), Appeal and Error, Section 161. To create finality in criminal cases for purpose of appeal, it is necessary that conviction should be followed by sentence. Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 58 S. Ct. 164, 82 L. Ed. 204.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

Bruce Murray, a fourteen year old male, the appellant herein, was charged in The Family Court of Richland County with committing the crime of disorderly conduct by the use of obscene or profane language in a public place, in violation of Section 16-558 of the Code, as amended.

When this case came on fo,r a hearing before The Honorable J. McNary Spigner, Judge of the Family Court of Richland County, the appellant moved to dismiss the charge upon the ground that the statute defining the crime of disorderly conduct is vague, indefinite, and overbroad. This motion was refused. The trial then proceeded and after the *256 taking of all of the testimony, the judge announced, “I am going to find Bruce Murray guilty and withhold disposition.” Thereafter, the trial judge issued a written order holding as a matter of law that the appellant was guilty and “disposition is withheld until further order.”

The appellant charges the trial judge with error in refusing to hold that Section 16-588 of the Code, as amended, defining the crime of disorderly conduct, is unconstitutionally vague, indefinite and overbroad. We are unable, at this time, to consider the question presented. This Court is confined to the consideration of questions presented after final judgment has been rendered. The appellant has never been sentenced and until he is sentenced there is no final judgment.

It is clear that this appeal, not being from a final judgment, under our decisions is premature and shquld be dismissed for that reason. Our cases so hold. State v. McKettrick, 13 S. C. 439; State v. Burbage, 51 S. C. 284, 28 S. E. 937; State v. Hughes, 56 S. C. 540, 35 S. E. 214; State v. Timmons, 68 S. C. 258, 47 S. E. 140; State v. Byars, 79 S. C. 174, 60 S. E. 448; State v. Turner, 118 S. C. 383, 110 S. E. 525; and State v. McMillan, 189 S. C. 444, 1 S. E. (2d) 626. See also 24 C. J. S. Criminal Law § 1649; and 4 Am. Jur. (2d), Appeal and Error, Section 161. To create finality in criminal cases for purpose of appeal, it is necessary that conviction should be followed by sentence. Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 58 S. Ct. 164, 82 L. Ed. 204.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E.2d 718, 261 S.C. 255, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-murray-sc-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack