State v. Jefferson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Jefferson

DecidedMay 27, 2009

Docket2009-UP-225

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Jefferson (State v. Jefferson) 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

State v. Jefferson, (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Jacques Jefferson, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-225
Submitted May 1, 2009 Filed May 27, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jacques Jefferson appeals his conviction and sentences for second-degree burglary, grand larceny, and possession of tools of crime. On appeal, Jefferson argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the indictments. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Evans v. State, 363 S.C. 495, 514, 611 S.E.2d 510, 520 (2005) (stating after a defendant obtains the requested information, the burden is on the defendant to prove facts upon which a challenge to the legality of the grand jury or its proceedings is predicated); State v. Anderson, 312 S.C. 185, 187, 439 S.E.2d 835, 836 (1993) (holding prosecutors are prohibited from appearing as the sole witness before the grand jury); Weathers v. State, 319 S.C. 59, 459 S.E.2d 838 (1995) (regularity of proceedings in general sessions court is presumed); State v. James, 321 S.C. 75, 79, 472 S.E.2d 38, 40 (Ct. App. 1996) (explaining absent evidence to the contrary, the regularity and legality of proceedings before a grand jury is presumed).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, 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

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 Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Jacques Jefferson, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-225
Submitted May 1, 2009 Filed May 27, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jacques Jefferson appeals his conviction and sentences for second-degree burglary, grand larceny, and possession of tools of crime. On appeal, Jefferson argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the indictments. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Evans v. State, 363 S.C. 495, 514, 611 S.E.2d 510, 520 (2005) (stating after a defendant obtains the requested information, the burden is on the defendant to prove facts upon which a challenge to the legality of the grand jury or its proceedings is predicated); State v. Anderson, 312 S.C. 185, 187, 439 S.E.2d 835, 836 (1993) (holding prosecutors are prohibited from appearing as the sole witness before the grand jury); Weathers v. State, 319 S.C. 59, 459 S.E.2d 838 (1995) (regularity of proceedings in general sessions court is presumed); State v. James, 321 S.C. 75, 79, 472 S.E.2d 38, 40 (Ct. App. 1996) (explaining absent evidence to the contrary, the regularity and legality of proceedings before a grand jury is presumed).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Jefferson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jefferson-scctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack