Home/Supreme Court of South Carolina/Murdock v. State

Murdock v. State

417 S.E.2d 543, 308 S.C. 143, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 86
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 6, 1992
Docket23623
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 417 S.E.2d 543 (Murdock 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
Murdock v. State, 417 S.E.2d 543, 308 S.C. 143, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 86 (S.C. 1992).

Opinion

Chandler, Justice;

*144 Petitioner Darrell E. Murdock (Murdock) pled guilty to possession of counterfeit LSD with intent to distribute and was sentenced to fifteen years. We vacate the plea and remand.

Murdock was originally indicted for possession with intent to distribute LSD pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(b)(1) (Supp. 1990). At the guilty plea proceeding, the indictment was amended to charge Murdock with possession of counterfeit LSD with intent to distribute pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(a)(2) (Supp. 1990). This amended indictment was not presented to the grand jury nor was presentment waived.

Except for certain minor offenses, the Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a guilty plea unless there has been an indictment, a waiver of indictment, or unless the charge is a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the indictment. State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325, 342 S.E. (2d) 597 (1986). The test for determining when a crime is a lesser included offense is whether the greater of the two offenses includes all the elements of the lesser offense.

Here, possession of counterfeit LSD with intent to distribute is not a lesser included offense of possession of LSD with intent to distribute. A counterfeit controlled substance is one which, without authorization, bears the label or trademark of a manufacturer other than the person who, in fact, manufactured the drug. S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-110 (1976). Therefore, possession with intent to distribute a counterfeit substance contains an additional element which possession of the actual drug lacks, to wit, that the drug be counterfeit.

Since there was no indictment for possession with intent to distribute counterfeit LSD, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to accept the plea. Accordingly, we vacate the plea and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.

Harwell, C.J., and Finney, Toal and Moore, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Mitchell
608 S.E.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005)
State v. Elliott
552 S.E.2d 727 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2001)
State v. Williams
552 S.E.2d 54 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2001)
State v. Green
539 S.E.2d 419 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2000)
State v. Elliott
517 S.E.2d 713 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1999)
Weinhauer v. State
513 S.E.2d 840 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
Carter v. State
495 S.E.2d 773 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1998)
State v. Kirby
481 S.E.2d 150 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1996)
State v. Sprouse
478 S.E.2d 871 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1996)
State v. McNeil
445 S.E.2d 461 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1994)
State v. Myers
438 S.E.2d 236 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1993)
Slack v. State
429 S.E.2d 801 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
417 S.E.2d 543, 308 S.C. 143, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdock-v-state-sc-1992.