Court Opinion

ID: 9582838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:31:56.06576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:36.505402
License: Public Domain

BURNETT, Justice:
I respectfully dissent.
FACTS
Respondent was indicted for trafficking in cocaine. The indictment originally alleged that respondent trafficked in more than 100 but less than 200 grams of cocaine. Before the jury was sworn, however, the State moved to amend the indictment on the ground that the amount of cocaine alleged was incorrect. With respondent’s consent, the trial court permitted the State to amend the indictment to allege an amount of more than 200 but less than 400 grams of cocaine.1 Respondent was subsequently convicted of trafficking, sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, and fined $100,000.
Respondent filed a direct appeal which he later withdrew. Thereafter, respondent filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Respondent argued that without a written waiver of presentment, the amendment to his trafficking indictment deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amendment increased the maximum penalty for a conviction. After hearing oral arguments, the PCR court agreed and vacated respondent’s conviction.
ISSUE
Did the amendment to respondent’s trafficking indictment deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction?
*148DISCUSSION
An amendment to an indictment is permissible if the amendment does not change the nature of the offense charged. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-100 (1985); see also State v. Myers, 313 S.C. 391, 438 S.E.2d 236 (1993). Here, respondent was charged with “trafficking in cocaine,” an offense defined in S.C.Code Ann. § 44r-53-370(e)(2) (Supp.1995) as the sale, purchase, possession, etc., of “ten grams or more of cocaine or any mixtures containing cocaine.” Although the amendment to respondent’s indictment increased the potential punishment he faced if convicted of trafficking, the offense charged remained the same. Consequently, the amendment in this case was permissible under § 17-19-100.
Respondent argues (and the majority holds) that this Court’s decision in Hopkins v. State, 317 S.C. 7, 451 S.E.2d 389 (1994), mandates a different result. I disagree.
In Hopkins, the petitioner was originally indicted for two counts of felony DUI causing great bodily injury. His indictment was subsequently amended to allege two counts of felony DUI causing death. See S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-2945 (Supp. 1995). Consequently, unlike the case at hand, the amendment at issue in Hopkins actually changed the original offense charged, not merely the potential punishment.
Further, in holding that an amendment to an indictment which increases the maximum penalty for an offense exceeds the terms of § 17-19-100, the Hopkins Court relied solely on State v. (Brace Eugene) Riddle, 301 S.C. 211, 391 S.E.2d 253 (1990).2 Riddle, however, does not support such a holding. In Riddle, the Court held that the amendment at issue changed the nature of the offense charged because the amendment increased the lesser charge of assault with intent to commit third degree criminal sexual conduct to the greater charge of assault with intent to commit first degree criminal sexual conduct. The reference in Riddle to the difference in punishment between third degree CSC and first degree CSC was clearly not the basis of the Court’s decision that the amendment exceeded the terms of § 17-19-100.
*149I would therefore reverse the grant of post-conviction relief and reinstate respondent’s conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine.

. At trial, respondent stipulated the amount of cocaine at issue was 293 grams. He contended, however, that the cocaine was not his.

. The Hopkins opinion inadvertently cites State v. (Ernest M.) Riddle, 291 S.C. 232, 353 S.E.2d 138 (1987).