In the Interest of Myren F.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedJanuary 14, 2015
Docket2015-UP-022
StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Interest of Myren F. (In the Interest of Myren F.) 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
In the Interest of Myren F., (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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

In the Interest of Myren F., a Juvenile Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002312

Appeal From Beaufort County Deborah A. Malphrus, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-022 Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015

VACATED

James Arthur Brown, Jr., of The Law Offices of Jim Brown, P.A., of Beaufort, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Because the family court was without jurisdiction to consider Myren F.'s motion, we vacate pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 2(b), SCRFC ("In addition to the rules set forth in Sections I, II, and IV of these Rules of Family Court, Rules 5, 6, 24, and 29, South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall be applicable in juvenile actions."); Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP ("Except for motions for new trials based on after-discovered evidence, post-trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the sentence."); State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212, 216, 656 S.E.2d 371, 373 (2008) ("[I]f [a post-trial] motion is not made within ten days of sentencing, the court will be without jurisdiction to entertain the motion.").

VACATED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., 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

Related

State v. Campbell
656 S.E.2d 371 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In the Interest of Myren F., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-myren-f-scctapp-2015.