State v. Pfeiffer

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Pfeiffer

DecidedMarch 28, 2018

Docket2018-UP-130

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Pfeiffer (State v. Pfeiffer) 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. Pfeiffer, (S.C. Ct. App. 2018).

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, Appellant,

v.

Frederick Scott Pfeiffer, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000211

Appeal From State Grand Jury J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-130 Heard December 11, 2017 – Filed March 28, 2018

AFFIRMED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Appellant.

Ralph Gleaton, of Gleaton Wyatt, PA, and William G. Yarborough, III, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212, 215, 656 S.E.2d 371, 373 (2008) ("It 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."); Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP (permitting post-trial motions to be made within ten days after the imposition of the sentence); see generally Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 353 S.C. 559, 564, 579 S.E.2d 524, 526 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining successive post-trial motions are permitted in civil cases if the successive motion seeks "relief on issues coming to light as a result of an order following an initial post-trial motion that alters or amends the judgment").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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, Appellant,

v.

Frederick Scott Pfeiffer, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000211

Appeal From State Grand Jury J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-130 Heard December 11, 2017 – Filed March 28, 2018

AFFIRMED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Appellant.

Ralph Gleaton, of Gleaton Wyatt, PA, and William G. Yarborough, III, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212, 215, 656 S.E.2d 371, 373 (2008) ("It 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."); Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP (permitting post-trial motions to be made within ten days after the imposition of the sentence); see generally Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 353 S.C. 559, 564, 579 S.E.2d 524, 526 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining successive post-trial motions are permitted in civil cases if the successive motion seeks "relief on issues coming to light as a result of an order following an initial post-trial motion that alters or amends the judgment").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Pfeiffer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pfeiffer-scctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack