State v. Chanthavy

Opinion

State v. Chanthavy

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS 
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

---

The State, Respondent,

v.

Bill Chanthavy, Appellant.

---

Appeal from Spartanburg County
 Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-009
Heard February 2, 2006 - Filed February 27, 2006

---

AFFIRMED

---

Ricky Keith Harris, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Griffin, 277 S.C. 193, 285 S.E.2d 631 (1981)(holding proceedings before grand jury are presumed to be regular unless there is clear evidence to contrary); State v. Thompson, 305 S.C. 496, 409 S.E.2d 420 (Ct.App. 1991) (holding “[s]peculation about ‘potential’ abuse of grand jury proceedings cannot substitute for evidence of actual abuse as grounds for quashing an otherwise lawful indictment.”); State v. Williams, 263 S.C. 290, 210 S.E.2d 298 (1974)(holding indictment based upon hearsay testimony does not violate defendant’s rights); Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Jones, 335 S.C. 295, 516 S.E.2d 468 (Ct.App.1999) (holding unappealed ruling becomes law of case, and appellate court must assume ruling was correct).

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT, PLEICONES, JJ., and Acting Justice James W. Johnson, Jr., concur.