Court Opinion

ID: 9847032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:52:39.229083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:59.346455
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES.
I concur but write separately because I would reach the same result as the majority, although by a different approach. I agree that the failure to allege in the indictment that the murder was committed “feloniously, wilfully, and of [the petitioner’s] malice aforethought” does not create a subject matter jurisdiction defect. See State v. Rector, 158 S.C. 212, 155 S.E. 385 (1930)(purpose of the 1887 revisions to criminal procedure, which include the statute currently codified at S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-30, was to simplify indictments); see also State v. Cheatwood, 2 Hill (20 S.C.L.) 459(1834)(no jurisdictional defect where elements of offense charged in indictment using “words which are either wholly synonymous or much of the same meaning”).
I further agree that grand larceny is not a lesser-included offense of armed robbery because it contains an element (value of goods taken) that is not an element of the purported greater offense. See State v. Elliott, 346 S.C. 603, 552 S.E.2d *564727 (2001)(test for lesser-included offense). As the majority points out, the “armed robbery” count here alleges all the elements of both armed robbery and grand larceny. It thus conferred jurisdiction over both offenses, and petitioner waived any right to object to this jumbling when he failed to object prior to the entry of his plea. Cf. State v. Hutto, 252 S.C. 36, 165 S.E.2d 72 (1968)(jumbling objection waived pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-90 when not raised before jury sworn). However, since the post-conviction relief judge vacated petitioner’s grand larceny plea, and since the State did not appeal that order, the law of the case is that petitioner’s grand larceny conviction is vacated. See, e.g., ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997)(unappealed ruling, whether correct or not, is law of the case).
I agree that petitioner’s murder conviction stands, and that his grand larceny conviction falls. I agree that this result does not require a new proceeding on the murder charge, despite the fact that both pleas were the result of a single bargain, because I believe, in fact, that each plea was independently valid. I therefore concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the appealed orders.