In the Interest of Leitzsey

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Interest of Leitzsey

298 S.E.2d 777, 278 S.C. 543, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 210

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 3, 1983

Docket21837

StatusPublished

This text of 298 S.E.2d 777 (In the Interest of Leitzsey) 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

In the Interest of Leitzsey, 298 S.E.2d 777, 278 S.C. 543, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 210 (S.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appellant has been adjudicated delinquent and committed to the custody of the Department of Youth Services until the age of twenty-one or until released by that agency.

[544]*544The appellant, a Lexington County resident, was charged in a juvenile petition with “peeping tom” and arson. These incidents occurred in Lexington County, but the appellant was sent to Richland County Department of Youth Services to be held pending adjudication of the charges in the petition.

While being held in Richland County, he committed an assault and battery. A petition charging that offense was filed in Richland County, but was transferred to Lexington County for adjudication with the other charges.

Alleging a violation of Family Court Rule 40, the appellant moved for an order transferring the case back to Richland County. He appeals from the denial of that motion.

Family Court Rule 40 provides for a change of venue at the discretion of the trial judge. This Court will not overturn a trial judge’s ruling on venue unless an abuse of discretion has occurred to the prejudice of the appellant. State v. Massey, 267 S. C. 432, 229 S. E. (2d) 332 (1976). The appellant has made no showing of prejudice.

We affirm the decree of the Family Court.

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