State v. Hinson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Hinson

399 S.E.2d 422, 303 S.C. 92, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 192

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 8, 1990

Docket23273

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 399 S.E.2d 422 (State v. Hinson) 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

State v. Hinson, 399 S.E.2d 422, 303 S.C. 92, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 192 (S.C. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

Gregory, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted in 1984 of trafficking in marijuana and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. On appeal, his conviction was affirmed but the case was remanded for consideration of his motion for a new trial. State v. Hinson, 293 S.C. 406, 361 S.E. (2d) 120 (1987). This appeal follows the denial of that motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On April 25, 1988, the trial judge issued an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. Appellant received a copy of this order on May 16,1988. On May 25,1988, appellant filed a motion “to alter or amend judgment.” On July 8, 1988, the trial judge denied this motion for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant served and filed a notice of intent to appeal on July 16, 1988.

[94]*94It is a long-standing rule of law that a trial judge is without jurisdiction to consider a criminal matter once the term of court during which judgment was entered expires. State v. Mixon, 275 S.C. 575, 274 S.E. (2d) 406 (1981); State v. Patterson, 272 S.C. 2, 249 S.E. (2d) 770 (1978); State v. Best, 257 S.C. 361, 186 S.E. (2d) 272 (1972); accord Rule 29, SCRCrimP (effective September 1,1988). Since appellant did not move to reconsider the order denying the new trial motion until after expiration of the term of court during which it was entered, the trial judge properly concluded he had no jurisdiction.

Moreover, since appellant failed to serve a notice of intent to appeal within ten days of receipt of the order denying him a new trial, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of that order. Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E. (2d) 422 (1977); State v. Lawrence, 266 S.C. 423, 223 S.E. (2d) 856 (1976); White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E. (2d) 35 (1974).

Accordingly, this appeal is

Dismissed.

Harwell, Chandler and Toal, JJ. concur. Finney, J. concurs in separate opinion.

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

Gregory, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted in 1984 of trafficking in marijuana and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. On appeal, his conviction was affirmed but the case was remanded for consideration of his motion for a new trial. State v. Hinson, 293 S.C. 406, 361 S.E. (2d) 120 (1987). This appeal follows the denial of that motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On April 25, 1988, the trial judge issued an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. Appellant received a copy of this order on May 16,1988. On May 25,1988, appellant filed a motion “to alter or amend judgment.” On July 8, 1988, the trial judge denied this motion for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant served and filed a notice of intent to appeal on July 16, 1988.

[94]*94It is a long-standing rule of law that a trial judge is without jurisdiction to consider a criminal matter once the term of court during which judgment was entered expires. State v. Mixon, 275 S.C. 575, 274 S.E. (2d) 406 (1981); State v. Patterson, 272 S.C. 2, 249 S.E. (2d) 770 (1978); State v. Best, 257 S.C. 361, 186 S.E. (2d) 272 (1972); accord Rule 29, SCRCrimP (effective September 1,1988). Since appellant did not move to reconsider the order denying the new trial motion until after expiration of the term of court during which it was entered, the trial judge properly concluded he had no jurisdiction.

Moreover, since appellant failed to serve a notice of intent to appeal within ten days of receipt of the order denying him a new trial, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of that order. Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E. (2d) 422 (1977); State v. Lawrence, 266 S.C. 423, 223 S.E. (2d) 856 (1976); White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E. (2d) 35 (1974).

Accordingly, this appeal is

Dismissed.

Harwell, Chandler and Toal, JJ. concur. Finney, J. concurs in separate opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 S.E.2d 422, 303 S.C. 92, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hinson-sc-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack