Pringle v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Pringle v. State

339 S.E.2d 127, 287 S.C. 409, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 251

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 15, 1986

Docket22448

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 339 S.E.2d 127 (Pringle 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

Pringle v. State, 339 S.E.2d 127, 287 S.C. 409, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 251 (S.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This matter is before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari after the denial of petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief. We grant certiorari and dispense with briefing. We affirm.

Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five (25) years. In his petition, he claims that he was never indicted and, therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Petitioner bases this claim on the fact that the signature of the grand jury foreman does not appear on the indictment forms.

The post-conviction judge found petitioner was properly indicted and denied relief. The stamped application of “True Bill” on the indictment form was taken as conclusive proof the grand jury had voted to indict petitioner.

While it is preferable for the grand jury foreman to sign the true bill, the foreman’s signature is not essential to the validity of the indictment when the indictment is in writing and published by the clerk. See State v. Creighton, 10 S.C.L. (1 Nott & McCord) 256 (1818). In the *411 absence of evidence-to the contrary, the regularity of the proceedings of a court of general jurisdiction will be assumed. See generally State v. Britt, 235 S. C. 395, 111 S. E. (2d) 669 (1959); State v. Jones, 211 S. C. 319, 45 S. E. (2d) 29 (1947); State v. Waring, 109 S. C. 52, 95 S. E. 143 (1918). Here, there was testimony by the foreman of the grand jury that indicted petitioner that the regular procedure was to have the clerk publish the indictment in open court after the grand jury returned a true bill.

The post-conviction judge found that petitioner had been indicted based upon the stamped application of “True Bill” on the indictment form. This Court will affirm the lower court if there is any evidence in the record to support the lower court’s findings, Webb v. State, 281 S. C. 237, 314 S. E. (2d) 839 (1984), and can affirm for any reason appearing in the record. Supreme Court Rule 4, § 8. Because there is evidence that the regular indictment procedure was followed in this case, the record supports the lower court’s finding that petitioner was properly indicted and therefore the trial court had jurisdiction. The denial of post-conviction relief is

Affirmed.

Harwell, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam:

This matter is before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari after the denial of petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief. We grant certiorari and dispense with briefing. We affirm.

Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five (25) years. In his petition, he claims that he was never indicted and, therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Petitioner bases this claim on the fact that the signature of the grand jury foreman does not appear on the indictment forms.

The post-conviction judge found petitioner was properly indicted and denied relief. The stamped application of “True Bill” on the indictment form was taken as conclusive proof the grand jury had voted to indict petitioner.

While it is preferable for the grand jury foreman to sign the true bill, the foreman’s signature is not essential to the validity of the indictment when the indictment is in writing and published by the clerk. See State v. Creighton, 10 S.C.L. (1 Nott & McCord) 256 (1818). In the *411 absence of evidence-to the contrary, the regularity of the proceedings of a court of general jurisdiction will be assumed. See generally State v. Britt, 235 S. C. 395, 111 S. E. (2d) 669 (1959); State v. Jones, 211 S. C. 319, 45 S. E. (2d) 29 (1947); State v. Waring, 109 S. C. 52, 95 S. E. 143 (1918). Here, there was testimony by the foreman of the grand jury that indicted petitioner that the regular procedure was to have the clerk publish the indictment in open court after the grand jury returned a true bill.

The post-conviction judge found that petitioner had been indicted based upon the stamped application of “True Bill” on the indictment form. This Court will affirm the lower court if there is any evidence in the record to support the lower court’s findings, Webb v. State, 281 S. C. 237, 314 S. E. (2d) 839 (1984), and can affirm for any reason appearing in the record. Supreme Court Rule 4, § 8. Because there is evidence that the regular indictment procedure was followed in this case, the record supports the lower court’s finding that petitioner was properly indicted and therefore the trial court had jurisdiction. The denial of post-conviction relief is

Affirmed.

Harwell, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.E.2d 127, 287 S.C. 409, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pringle-v-state-sc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack