THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
The State, Petitioner,
Kenneth Holston, Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal From Aiken County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-MO-032
Submitted June 3, 2005 – Filed June 20, 2005
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of the Office of the Attorney General, and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Petitioner.
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of the
South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The State seeks a writ of certiorari following the denial of its petition for rehearing to the Court of Appeals. We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Respondent was indicted for two counts of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor in the first degree. He pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a child on both indictments. Separate indictments charging respondent with committing a lewd act on a child were not prepared and the original CSC indictments were not amended to reflect the lewd act charges to which respondent was pleading guilty. Rather, the lewd act charges were noted on respondent’s sentencing sheets along with his signed waiver of presentment to those charges. Respondent received concurrent fifteen year terms of imprisonment.
The Court of Appeals, relying on its prior decision in State v. Smalls, 354 S.C. 498, 581 S.E.2d 850 (Ct. App. 2003), found that simply listing the lewd act charge on the sentencing sheets signed by respondent did not satisfy the requirements governing acceptance of guilty pleas and vacated respondent’s pleas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. State v. Holston, Op. No. 2003-UP-593 (S.C.
The State contends the Court of Appeals erred in finding the circuit court without subject matter jurisdiction to accept respondent’s guilty pleas. Specifically, the State argues that after the grand jury returned a true bill it was not necessary to prepare a new indictment for respondent to waive presentment and plead guilty to the lewd act charges. We agree.
In State v. Smalls, Op. No. 25988 (S.C. Sup.
TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.