State v. Marrett

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Marrett

DecidedSeptember 30, 2003

Docket2003-UP-568

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Marrett (State v. Marrett) 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. Marrett, (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Murphy v. Nationsbank

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Thom Marrett, Appellant.

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-568
Submitted July 15, 2003 Filed September 30, 2003

AFFIRMED

Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thom Marrett appeals from a circuit court order directing him to pay $3000 in restitution to his former employer, Sod Fathers, Inc. Marrett contends the circuit court erred in selecting the measure of damages and that the evidence supporting the order for restitution was inadequate. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-3-1515(B) (2003) (granting the trial judge discretion in requiring documentation of claims for restitution); S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-25-322(B) (2003) (authorizing circuit courts to consider several factors in determining the manner, method, or amount of restitution); Harkins v. Greenville Co., 340 S.C. 606, 620, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000) (requiring a trial judge to rule on issues to preserve them for appeal); Holy Loch Distributors, Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) (stating that to be considered on appeal an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court); State v. Cox, 326 S.C. 440, 442, 484 S.E.2d 108, 109 (Ct. App. 1997) (providing that trial courts have broad discretion in fixing the amount of restitution).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, 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

Murphy v. Nationsbank

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Thom Marrett, Appellant.

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-568
Submitted July 15, 2003 Filed September 30, 2003

AFFIRMED

Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thom Marrett appeals from a circuit court order directing him to pay $3000 in restitution to his former employer, Sod Fathers, Inc. Marrett contends the circuit court erred in selecting the measure of damages and that the evidence supporting the order for restitution was inadequate. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-3-1515(B) (2003) (granting the trial judge discretion in requiring documentation of claims for restitution); S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-25-322(B) (2003) (authorizing circuit courts to consider several factors in determining the manner, method, or amount of restitution); Harkins v. Greenville Co., 340 S.C. 606, 620, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000) (requiring a trial judge to rule on issues to preserve them for appeal); Holy Loch Distributors, Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) (stating that to be considered on appeal an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court); State v. Cox, 326 S.C. 440, 442, 484 S.E.2d 108, 109 (Ct. App. 1997) (providing that trial courts have broad discretion in fixing the amount of restitution).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Marrett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marrett-scctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack