State v. Lawson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Lawson

305 S.E.2d 249, 279 S.C. 266, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 20, 1983

Docket21962

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 305 S.E.2d 249 (State v. Lawson) 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. Lawson, 305 S.E.2d 249, 279 S.C. 266, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 337 (S.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appellant was convicted of robbery, grand larceny, and aggravated assault and battery. He received three ten-year consecutive sentences, suspended upon service of ten years, with three years’ probation. Our review of the case persuades us the appellant should not have been convicted of larceny. Therefore we reverse that conviction, vacate the attendant sentence, and affirm the remainder of the judgment.

The evidence at trial showed that the assistant manager of a restaurant had left the premises one night carrying the evening’s receipts in a paper bag. The appellant attacked him from behind, threw him to the ground, beat him severely and fled with the bag containing the restaurant receipts.

It is plain from the facts recited that the appellant committed both robbery and the lesser-included offense of larceny. State v. Brown, 274 S. C. 48, 260 S. E. (2d) 719 (1979).

*268 The state and federal constitutions guarantee freedom from double j eopardy and protect a criminal defendant from punishment for both an offense and a lesser-included offense when, as here, they are established by the very same acts. United States Constitution, Amendments V and XIV and Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed. (2d) 707 (1969); South Carolina Constitution, Article I, Section 12; Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161, 97 S. Ct. 2221, 53 L. Ed. (2d) 187 (1977); cf. State v. Lawrence, 266 S. C. 423, 223 S. E. (2d) 856 (1976) (no violation of double jeopardy to sentence defendant for both armed robbery and unlawful possession of a pistol, although the operative facts in both crimes were identical, because former did not include latter).

The sentence for grand larceny violated the appellant’s constitutional right not to be punished twice for the same offense. We now vacate the sentence and reverse the conviction for grand larceny.

The remaining issues we affirm under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court.

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

Per Curiam:

The appellant was convicted of robbery, grand larceny, and aggravated assault and battery. He received three ten-year consecutive sentences, suspended upon service of ten years, with three years’ probation. Our review of the case persuades us the appellant should not have been convicted of larceny. Therefore we reverse that conviction, vacate the attendant sentence, and affirm the remainder of the judgment.

The evidence at trial showed that the assistant manager of a restaurant had left the premises one night carrying the evening’s receipts in a paper bag. The appellant attacked him from behind, threw him to the ground, beat him severely and fled with the bag containing the restaurant receipts.

It is plain from the facts recited that the appellant committed both robbery and the lesser-included offense of larceny. State v. Brown, 274 S. C. 48, 260 S. E. (2d) 719 (1979).

*268 The state and federal constitutions guarantee freedom from double j eopardy and protect a criminal defendant from punishment for both an offense and a lesser-included offense when, as here, they are established by the very same acts. United States Constitution, Amendments V and XIV and Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed. (2d) 707 (1969); South Carolina Constitution, Article I, Section 12; Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161, 97 S. Ct. 2221, 53 L. Ed. (2d) 187 (1977); cf. State v. Lawrence, 266 S. C. 423, 223 S. E. (2d) 856 (1976) (no violation of double jeopardy to sentence defendant for both armed robbery and unlawful possession of a pistol, although the operative facts in both crimes were identical, because former did not include latter).

The sentence for grand larceny violated the appellant’s constitutional right not to be punished twice for the same offense. We now vacate the sentence and reverse the conviction for grand larceny.

The remaining issues we affirm under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 S.E.2d 249, 279 S.C. 266, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lawson-sc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack