State v. Towery

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Towery

386 S.E.2d 462, 300 S.C. 86, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 234

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 4, 1989

Docket23108

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 386 S.E.2d 462 (State v. Towery) 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. Towery, 386 S.E.2d 462, 300 S.C. 86, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 234 (S.C. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Finney, Justice:

Appellant Thomas Leon Towery was indicted under an indictment which alleged that he “did traffic in cocaine by willfully, unlawfully and knowingly having in his possession a quantity of cocaine.” Prior to trial, by agreement of counsel for the state and counsel for the appellant, the indictment was amended to reflect that the quantity of cocaine was “in excess of 100 grams but less than 200 grams.” The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, and the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment and a fine of Twenty-five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars. We affirm.

The appellant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for trafficking in cocaine because the indictment returned by the grand jury failed to specify the quantity of cocaine in appellant’s possession. We disagree.

“An indictment is sufficient if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer, and if an acquittal or a conviction thereon may be pleaded as a bar to any subsequent prosecution.” State v. Owens, 293 S. C. 161, 359 S. E. (2d) 275, 277 (1987). This court finds that the indictment returned by the grand jury fulfilled the criteria enunciated in State v. Owens, supra. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

Affirmed.

Gregory, C. J., and Harwell, Chandler and Toal, JJ., concur.

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

Finney, Justice:

Appellant Thomas Leon Towery was indicted under an indictment which alleged that he “did traffic in cocaine by willfully, unlawfully and knowingly having in his possession a quantity of cocaine.” Prior to trial, by agreement of counsel for the state and counsel for the appellant, the indictment was amended to reflect that the quantity of cocaine was “in excess of 100 grams but less than 200 grams.” The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, and the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment and a fine of Twenty-five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars. We affirm.

The appellant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for trafficking in cocaine because the indictment returned by the grand jury failed to specify the quantity of cocaine in appellant’s possession. We disagree.

“An indictment is sufficient if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer, and if an acquittal or a conviction thereon may be pleaded as a bar to any subsequent prosecution.” State v. Owens, 293 S. C. 161, 359 S. E. (2d) 275, 277 (1987). This court finds that the indictment returned by the grand jury fulfilled the criteria enunciated in State v. Owens, supra. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

Affirmed.

Gregory, C. J., and Harwell, Chandler and Toal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 S.E.2d 462, 300 S.C. 86, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-towery-sc-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack