State v. Mack

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Mack

DecidedApril 17, 2013

Docket2013-UP-161

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Mack (State v. Mack) 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. Mack, (S.C. Ct. App. 2013).

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

John Mack, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-187127

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-161 Heard April 9, 2013 – Filed April 17, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John Mack appeals his convictions of first-degree burglary and grand larceny. Mack argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash his first-degree burglary indictment because it was inaccurate and overbroad. He further contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on both the first-degree burglary and grand larceny charges. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Mack's motion to quash: State v. Shoemaker, 276 S.C. 86, 88, 275 S.E.2d 878, 879 (1981) (affirming the trial court's decision to deny a motion to quash because the defendant knew the crime she was being prosecuted for and there was no indication the defendant was unfairly prejudiced); State v. Bultron, 318 S.C. 323, 329-30, 457 S.E.2d 616, 620 (Ct. App. 1995) (affirming the trial court's decision to deny a motion to quash an indictment based on a mere scrivener's error).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Mack's directed verdict motions: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [c]ourt must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.").

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

AFFIRMED.

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

John Mack, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-187127

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-161 Heard April 9, 2013 – Filed April 17, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John Mack appeals his convictions of first-degree burglary and grand larceny. Mack argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash his first-degree burglary indictment because it was inaccurate and overbroad. He further contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on both the first-degree burglary and grand larceny charges. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Mack's motion to quash: State v. Shoemaker, 276 S.C. 86, 88, 275 S.E.2d 878, 879 (1981) (affirming the trial court's decision to deny a motion to quash because the defendant knew the crime she was being prosecuted for and there was no indication the defendant was unfairly prejudiced); State v. Bultron, 318 S.C. 323, 329-30, 457 S.E.2d 616, 620 (Ct. App. 1995) (affirming the trial court's decision to deny a motion to quash an indictment based on a mere scrivener's error).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Mack's directed verdict motions: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [c]ourt must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.").

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Mack, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mack-scctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack