State v. Quinterris J. Carmichael

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Quinterris J. Carmichael

DecidedApril 23, 2025

Docket2023-000162

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Quinterris J. Carmichael (State v. Quinterris J. Carmichael) 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. Quinterris J. Carmichael, (S.C. Ct. App. 2025).

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.

Quinterris Javon Carmichael, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000162

Appeal From Florence County D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-136 Submitted April 16, 2025 – Filed April 23, 2025

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General William Joseph Maye, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Quinterris Javon Carmichael appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during a violent crime and sentence of life imprisonment. We reverse and remand pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court erred by denying Carmichael's request to individually poll the jurors because the denial of his right to an individual poll of each juror is reversible per se. See State v. Adams, 409 S.C. 641, 647, 763 S.E.2d 341, 344 (2014) ("[An appellate] court reviews questions of law de novo."); State v. Wright, 439 S.C. 101, 102, 886 S.E.2d 206, 207 (2023) ("The denial of a defendant's request [that the jury be individually polled] is reversible per se."). Because we reverse the trial court's finding regarding individual jury polling, we decline to address Carmichael's remaining arguments. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (declining to address remaining issues when resolution of a different issue was dispositive).

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Quinterris Javon Carmichael, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000162

Appeal From Florence County D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-136 Submitted April 16, 2025 – Filed April 23, 2025

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General William Joseph Maye, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Quinterris Javon Carmichael appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during a violent crime and sentence of life imprisonment. We reverse and remand pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court erred by denying Carmichael's request to individually poll the jurors because the denial of his right to an individual poll of each juror is reversible per se. See State v. Adams, 409 S.C. 641, 647, 763 S.E.2d 341, 344 (2014) ("[An appellate] court reviews questions of law de novo."); State v. Wright, 439 S.C. 101, 102, 886 S.E.2d 206, 207 (2023) ("The denial of a defendant's request [that the jury be individually polled] is reversible per se."). Because we reverse the trial court's finding regarding individual jury polling, we decline to address Carmichael's remaining arguments. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (declining to address remaining issues when resolution of a different issue was dispositive).

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Quinterris J. Carmichael, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-quinterris-j-carmichael-scctapp-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack