May 6, 2012 | Brain Injury/Head Trauma, Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Wrongful Death
Serious accident cases are always aggressively defended. Serious accident attorneys know this fact and prepare for a long fight. This recent SC Supreme Court demonstrates how hard defense lawyers defend wrongful death cases. Here, the issue involved a phrase in the pre-suit affidavit. Fortunately, the Court sided with the deceased victim in this case. With this matter resolved, the case essentially starts again from the beginning.
The serious accident attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP understand what you and your family are facing if someone you love has been seriously injured or died as a result of negligence. Together, our seasoned trial lawyers have over 70 years of litigation experience. To learn more, please visit our website at www.rjrlaw.com. Or, call us directly for a private consultation at 877-374-5999. We welcome an opportunity to see if we can help.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Evelyn Grier, as the appointed Personal Representative of the Estate of Willie James Fee, deceased, Appellant,
v.
AMISUB of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont Medical Center, Respondent.
Appeal from York County
S. Jackson Kimball, III, Special Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 27118
Heard March 6, 2012 – Filed May 2, 2012
REVERSED AND REMANDED
John Gressette Felder, Jr, McGowan Hood & Felder, LLC, of Columbia, William Angus McKinnon, McGowan Hood & Felder, LLC, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.
William U. Gunn and Joshua T. Thompson, of Holcombe Bomar, P.A., of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
JUSTICE HEARN: Willie James Fee died while in the care of AMISUB of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont Medical Center (Piedmont). Evelyn Grier, as the personal representative of his estate, subsequently brought this medical malpractice claim against Piedmont. The circuit court dismissed Grier’s claim on the ground that the expert witness affidavit she was required to submit pursuant to Sections 15-36-100 and 15-79-125 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011) did not contain a competent opinion on proximate cause. Grier appeals, arguing the court erred in finding these statutes require the affidavit contain such an opinion. We agree and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Fee was admitted to Piedmont in January 2008 for treatment of a host of ailments, the list of which is not pertinent to this appeal. He remained at Piedmont until September 2008, at which point he was discharged to another facility for further care. However, he was readmitted to Piedmont twelve days later, and he remained there until his death in February 2009.
Prior to bringing wrongful death and survival proceedings against Piedmont stemming from medical malpractice allegedly committed while it was treating Fee, Grier filed a notice of intent to file suit as required by section 15-79-125(A). Her claims contend Piedmont’s failure to monitor and treat Fee for bedsores and sepsis contributed to his death. In conjunction with this notice, Grier also filed an affidavit from Sharon Barber, a nurse with experience treating bedsores and their complications. In it, Nurse Barber opined, based on her review of Fee’s medical records, that Piedmont breached its duty of care towards Fee in multiple respects and these breaches were a contributing cause of Fee’s death.
Piedmont subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Nurse Barber was not qualified to render an opinion as to cause of death, which meant Grier’s affidavit did not contain a competent causation opinion. The circuit court agreed that Nurse Barber was not qualified to opine as to cause of death. Additionally, the court held
that it is implicit in the Tort Reform Act, and in particular the Notice of Intent, Short and Plain Statement of Facts, and the affidavit requirements at issue in this motion, that a showing of proximate cause must be made by submission of a proper affidavit addressing proximate cause, and made by a person qualified to do so. Plaintiff in this instance has failed to submit such an affidavit, and for that reason Defendant’s Motion must be granted . . . .
While the court gave Grier thirty days to submit a qualifying affidavit, Grier failed to do so. The court accordingly dismissed Grier’s claim. This appeal followed.
LAW/ANALYSIS
On appeal, Grier concedes Nurse Barber is not qualified to render an opinion as to Fee’s cause of death. Thus, the only argument Grier presents is that the circuit court erred in holding the pre-suit affidavit a plaintiff statutorily is required to file before bringing a medical malpractice claim must contain an expert opinion on proximate cause. We agree.
The issue before us is purely one of statutory interpretation. “Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we are free to decide without any deference to the court below.” CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cnty. Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74, 716 S.E.2d 877, 881 (2011). It is well-established that “[t]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.” Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). “What a legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will. Therefore, the courts are bound to give effect to the expressed intent of the legislature.” Id. (quotation omitted). Thus, we must follow the plain and unambiguous language in a statute and have “no right to impose another meaning.” Id. It is only when applying the words literally leads to a result so patently absurd that the General Assembly could not have intended it that we look beyond the statute’s plain language. Cabiness v. Town of James Island, 393 S.C. 176, 192, 712 S.E.2d 416, 425 (2011).
In ascertaining the meaning of language used in a statute, we presume the General Assembly is “aware of the common law, and where a statute uses a term that has a well-recognized meaning in the law, the presumption is that the General Assembly intended to use the term in that sense.” State v. Bridgers, 329 S.C. 11, 14, 495 S.E.2d 196, 198 (1997); see also Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 500-01 (2000) (“[W]hen Congress uses language with a settled meaning at common law, Congress ‘presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such case, absence of contrary direction may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as a departure from them.'” (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952).
Finally, statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed. Epstein v. Coastal Timber Co., 393 S.C. 276, 285, 711 S.E.2d 912, 917 (2011). Under this rule, a statute restricting the common law will “not be extended beyond the clear intent of the legislature.” Crosby v. Glasscock Trucking Co., 340 S.C. 626, 628, 532 S.E.2d 856, 857 (2000). Statutes subject to this rule include those which “limit a claimant’s right to bring suit.” 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 535.
With these principles in mind, we turn to the statutes at issue in this case. Section 15-79-125(A) provides, “Prior to filing or initiating a civil action alleging injury or death as a result of medical malpractice, the plaintiff shall contemporaneously file a Notice of Intent to File Suit and an affidavit of an expert witness, subject to the affidavit requirements established in Section 15-36-100.” The statute then gives specific guidance as to the requirements for the notice document:
The notice must name all adverse parties as defendants, must contain a short and plain statement of the facts showing that the party filing the notice is entitled to relief, must be signed by the plaintiff or by his attorney, and must include any standard interrogatories or similar disclosures required by the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
Id. However, it provides no specifics for the expert affidavit. For that, the statute directs the reader to section 15-36-100. This section in turn states the plaintiff has to submit “an affidavit of an expert witness which must specify at least one negligent act or omission claimed to exist and the factual basis for each claim based on the available evidence at the time of the filing of the affidavit.” Id. § 15-36-100(B).
We begin by examining the statute concerning the affidavit itself, section 15-36-100(B). No party disputes that this statute is unambiguous, and thus we must apply its plain language. In our opinion, the language that the affidavit must “specify at least one negligent act or omission” encompasses only the breach element of a common law negligence claim and not causation. Thus, the statute limits its requirement for the affidavit to only breach.
First, the term “negligent act or omission” consistently has been used to refer only to breach and never to causation. Thomasko v. Poole, 349 S.C. 7, 11, 561 S.E.2d 597, 599 (2002) (“A plaintiff, to establish a cause of action for negligence, must prove the following four elements: (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) resulting in damages to the plaintiff; and (4) damages proximately resulted from the breach of duty.” (emphasis added)); Doe ex rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 322, 548 S.E.2d 854, 857 (2001) (“To state a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate the concurrence of three elements: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty by negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach.” (emphasis added)); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 422, 529 S.E.2d 710, 712 (2000) (“To establish a cause of action in negligence, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements: (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty.” (emphasis added)); Bishop v. S.C. Dep’t of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 88, 502 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1998) (“To establish a cause of action in negligence, three essential elements must be proven: (1) duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty.” (emphasis added)). Furthermore, proximate cause requires proof beyond just the act or omission in question and concerns whether it is the “but for” cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and whether the harm was foreseeable. Bishop, 331 S.C. at 88-89, 502 S.E.2d at 83.
The General Assembly therefore used a term of art which has a well-defined common law meaning as just breach, and we can find nothing indicating the General Assembly intended to vary from it. Accordingly, the plain and unambiguous language of the statute forecloses any argument that the affidavit contain a proximate cause opinion.
Moreover, section 15-36-100 restricts a plaintiff’s common law right to bring a malpractice claim by imposing this requirement. Consequently, the language in the statute is to be strictly construed, and section 15-36-100 cannot extend any further than what the General Assembly clearly intended. Once again, this statute plainly and unambiguously uses a term of art which at common law refers only to the breach element of a negligence claim. The plain language of a statute being the best evidence of the General Assembly’s intent, there is no clear indication it sought to go any further. Thus, we are in no position to go further ourselves.
We therefore hold under these well-established principles that section 15-36-100(B) requires that the expert render an opinion only as to a breach of the standard of care. In its brief, Piedmont appears to concede as much by pointing out that it “has never made the argument that the ‘plain language’ of Section 15-36-100(B) requires an expert affidavit to opine on proximate cause. Instead, [Piedmont] focus upon Section 15-79-125(A) which requires a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice show a claim upon which a plaintiff is entitled to relief.”[1] Under this guise, Piedmont advances two arguments regarding this statute: (1) the plain language of section 15-79-125(A) requires the affidavit contain an opinion as to proximate cause because it requires that a plaintiff show he is entitled to relief, and in the alternative, (2) section 15-79-125(A) implicitly imposes this requirement. We disagree with both.
Like section 15-36-100(B), section 15-79-125(A) is unambiguous and in derogation of the common law. Read plainly and strictly, section 15-79-125(A) simply requires the contemporaneous filing of both the notice and the affidavit. While this statute supplies several requirements for the notice, it does not speak at all to what is required for the affidavit beyond stating that it is “subject to the affidavit requirements established in Section 15-36-100.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-79-125(A). While Piedmont argues that the affidavit must contain the same information as the notice—i.e., a demonstration that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, which would include causation—its construction is refuted by the plain language of section 15-79-125(A). By its very terms, this statute imposes no content requirements for the expert affidavit and specifically delegates that task to section 15-36-100.
We also reject Piedmont’s “implicit legislative intent” argument. For this, Piedmont turns to the policies behind tort reform legislation such as section 15-79-125. It correctly notes that one of the major goals behind these requirements is to curtail frivolous litigation by ensuring plaintiffs only present colorable claims. Moreover, section 15-79-125(C) requires that parties to a medical malpractice claim engage in mandatory pre-suit mediation. It is only if this mediation fails that a civil action officially is initiated in the circuit court. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-79-125(E). Thus, Piedmont argues having a fuller picture of a plaintiff’s claim prior to mediation, including the basis for proximate cause, enables a more productive mediation process which can avoid the need for a protracted battle in court.
We do not doubt that requiring the affidavit to contain an opinion regarding causation furthers these important goals. Nevertheless, the statute is unambiguous and we are confined to what the statute says, not what it ought to say, for we have no right to modify a statute’s application “under the guise of judicial interpretation.” See Coker v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 251 S.C. 175, 182, 161 S.E.2d 175, 178 (1968). In other words, when a statute is clear on its face, it is “improvident to judicially engraft extra requirements to legislation” just because doing so may further the intent behind the statute. See Berkebile v. Outen, 311 S.C. 50, 55-56, 426 S.E.2d 760, 763 (1993). We must also be mindful that section 15-79-125(A) is to be strictly construed, and imposing requirements which are not clearly intended to be in it violates this rule. We do not believe it is clear the General Assembly intended to include this requirement, and there are many reasons why it could have chosen not to do so. Moreover, Piedmont has not shown how an application of the plain language would lead to a result so patently absurd it could not have been intended by the General Assembly. We therefore are in no position to look beyond the plain language of the statute and read into it a requirement that the expert also opine as to causation at this stage in the proceedings.
Accordingly, we hold nothing in section 15-79-125(A) requires that an expert affidavit in a medical malpractice action submitted pursuant to section 15-36-100(B) contain an opinion regarding causation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we reverse the circuit court and hold the expert affidavit required by sections 15-36-100 and 15-79-125 does not need to contain an opinion as to proximate cause.[2] We therefore remand this matter for further proceedings. Our holding today in no way limits a plaintiff’s burden to come forward with expert testimony to support the merits of his claims, if necessary, later in the process. Instead, we merely hold that sections 15-36-100 and 15-79-125 do not require an expert opinion as to causation to be contained within the pre-filing affidavit.
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
[1] At oral argument, Piedmont changed its tune and relied instead on section 15-36-100(B). In particular, Piedmont argued for the first time that the language requiring the affidavit set forth “the factual basis for each claim” imposes a requirement for a causation opinion. The essence of the argument is that if the plaintiff must show a factual basis for the “claim,” that necessarily includes the element of causation. Not only was this the first time it made this argument, the argument is unavailing. The “factual basis” language clearly refers back to the “negligent act or omission” requirement, and therefore it only requires the affiant supply a factual basis for his opinion regarding breach.
[2] Piedmont made a general request for us to affirm under Rule 220(c), SCACR, but did not identify any specific grounds appearing in the record on which we could do so. It has therefore abandoned any additional sustaining grounds. See I’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 420, 526 S.E.2d 716, 723 (2000) (“Of course, a respondent may abandon an additional sustaining ground . . . by failing to raise it in the appellate brief.”); see also State v. Jones, 344 S.C. 48, 58, 543 S.E.2d 541, 546 (2001) (finding a conclusory argument abandoned).
May 5, 2012 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
In this rather lengthy SC Supreme Court decision, the issue was whether a defendant could be arrested and charged for simple possession of marijuana with a Uniform Traffic Citation. This is the “blue ticket” you normally assoicate with speeding tickets or DUI. Here, the Court confirmed that no other warrant was needed and that the Magistrate’s Court did, in fact, have proper jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
The criminal attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP applaud the hard work and diligence of the defense lawyer in this matter. Even though he ultimately lost, this attorney demonstrates the need for more criminal lawyers willing to really fight for their clients. Especially in criminal matters where your freedom, driving privileges, or even school scholarships are in jeopardy, you should expect your attorney to be willing to go “all the way” in your case. While there are many lawyers willing to negotiate, there are few that are willing to go to court. For more information about our firm, please visit our website at www.rjrlaw.com or call us directly at 877-374-5999.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Robert M. Bayly, Respondent,
v.
State of South Carolina, Petitioner.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Hampton County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 27109
Submitted January 26, 2012 – Filed April 4, 2012
REVERSED
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Matthew J. Friedman, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
David B. Tarr, of Columbia, for Respondent.
JUSTICE BEATTY: In this Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) case, Robert Bayly was issued a uniform traffic ticket for simple possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, Bayly paid the required fine and did not appear in court on the trial date. Bayly did not appeal his conviction but, instead, filed a PCR application in which he alleged the magistrate court was without subject matter jurisdiction to convict him as no arrest warrant had been issued. The PCR judge granted the petition and vacated Bayly’s conviction. This Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the PCR judge’s order. We reverse.
I.
Bayly, a licensed truck driver, was traveling from his home in Delaware to Florida when he was pulled over for speeding in Hampton County, South Carolina. At that time, the officer found marijuana in the glove compartment of Bayly’s vehicle. As a result, the officer issued Bayly a uniform traffic ticket for simple possession of marijuana. The ticket noted that Bayly was to appear before a magistrate in Varnville, South Carolina on February 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Bayly, however, mailed in the fine in the amount of $570 and did not appear for trial. The magistrate court judge convicted Bayly in his absence. Bayly did not appeal his conviction.
Two months later, Bayly received a letter from the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles stating his license was suspended in South Carolina for six months. Shortly thereafter, Bayly received a letter from the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles informing him that his license was suspended in Delaware for two years.
Bayly filed a PCR application in which he primarily contended his conviction was void as the magistrate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear his case. During the PCR hearing, Bayly argued that, pursuant to section 22-3-710 of the South Carolina Code,[1] all proceedings in magistrate court must be commenced under issuance of a warrant and under oath. In support of this assertion, Bayly cited Town of Honea Path v. Wright, 194 S.C. 461, 9 S.E.2d 924 (1940), wherein this Court interpreted the precursor to section 22-3-710. Based on Wright, Bayly claimed that any conviction without the issuance of a warrant was a nullity.
Bayly acknowledged that section 56-7-10,[2] which was enacted in 1971, listed numerous exceptions where the magistrate court is vested with jurisdiction pursuant to a uniform traffic ticket rather than a warrant. However, Bayly pointed out that simple possession of marijuana is not identified within the listed exceptions. Bayly indicated that he believed the uniform traffic ticket was sufficient for an arrest but not sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the magistrate court.
At the conclusion of the PCR hearing, the judge ruled the magistrate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict Bayly of simple possession of marijuana because no arrest warrant was issued as required under section 22-3-710. The judge noted that section 56-7-10 listed exceptions to this requirement; however, because simple possession of marijuana is not listed as an exception, he found that a warrant was required. Based on Wright, the PCR judge found a proceeding in summary court is a nullity if commenced without the issuance of a warrant.
The State petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the PCR judge’s order. This Court granted the State’s petition.
II.
A.
The State argues the PCR judge’s reliance on Wright was misplaced as this case was decided prior to the existence of uniform traffic tickets and before the enactment of sections 56-7-10 and 56-7-15. The State directs the Court’s attention to the following provisions of section 56-7-15:
(A) The uniform traffic ticket, established pursuant to the provisions of Section 56-7-10, may be used by law enforcement officers to arrest a person for an offense committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer if the punishment is within the jurisdiction of magistrates court and municipal court . . . .
(B) An officer who effects an arrest, by use of a uniform traffic ticket, for a violation of Chapter 25, Title 16 shall complete and file an incident report immediately following the issuance of the uniform traffic ticket.
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-15 (Supp. 2010).
Based on the plain terms of the statute, the State avers that a literal reading of section 56-7-15 provides for the use of a uniform traffic ticket for any offense that falls within the jurisdiction of the magistrate court and is committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer.
The State further asserts that section 56-7-15(B) “broadens the range of offenses in which a uniform traffic ticket may be used in lieu of an arrest warrant.” In interpreting this code section, the State contends the General Assembly “clearly anticipated that a uniform traffic ticket could be used for a violation of § 16-25-10 through § 16-25-125 (the criminal domestic violence chapter).” In view of this construction, the State claims that section 56-7-15(B) would be rendered meaningless if the uniform traffic ticket could be used only for a statute listed in section 56-7-10 because “no statute in Chapter 25 of Title 16 is listed there.”
B.
Initially, it is instructive to consider the fundamental principles of subject matter jurisdiction. In State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005), this Court clarified that “subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.” Id. at 100, 610 S.E.2d at 498. Based on this clarification, we conclusively recognized that an indictment, which is a notice document, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on a circuit court. Id. at 102, 610 S.E.2d at 500. Thus, an arrest warrant, similar to an indictment,[3] does not operate to vest a magistrate or municipal court with subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the General Assembly establishes the jurisdiction of these courts in a legislative pronouncement.
In terms of magistrate courts, our state Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to provide for their civil and criminal jurisdiction. S.C. Const. art. V, § 26. Pursuant to this authority, the General Assembly enacted Title 22 of the South Carolina Code to establish the jurisdiction of magistrate courts and the proceedings utilized to exercise this jurisdiction. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 22-1-10 to 22-8-50 (2007 & Supp. 2010).
Specifically, section 22-3-540 provides for the general jurisdiction of the magistrate court, stating:
Magistrates shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all criminal cases in which the punishment does not exceed a fine of one hundred dollars or imprisonment for thirty days, except cases in which an offense within the jurisdiction of a magistrate is included in the charge of an offense beyond his jurisdiction or when it is permissible to join a charge of an offense within his jurisdiction with one or more of which the magistrate has no jurisdiction. Magistrates shall have concurrent but not exclusive jurisdiction in the excepted cases. The provisions of this section shall not be construed so as to limit the jurisdiction of any magistrate whose jurisdiction has been extended beyond that stated above.
S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-540 (2007). A magistrate court’s jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the provisions of this code section as the last sentence indicates that the General Assembly may extend the jurisdiction of the magistrate court beyond what is set forth in section 22-3-540. See, e.g., S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-550(A) (2007 & Supp. 2010) (providing that, in general, magistrates have criminal jurisdiction “of all offenses which may be subject to the penalties of a fine or forfeiture not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both”).
We find section 56-7-10 was enacted to serve a two-fold purpose. First, this code section expands the general jurisdiction of the magistrate court by identifying certain offenses beyond the statutory limits of section 22-3-540. Secondly, section 56-7-10 eliminates the need for an arrest warrant and authorizes the use of a uniform traffic ticket to notify an accused and commence judicial proceedings in the magistrate court. We find that it is not the service of the uniform traffic ticket that confers subject matter jurisdiction to the magistrate but, rather, the General Assembly’s purposeful identification of certain offenses for which the magistrate is authorized to hear.
Thus, in accord with our pronouncement in Gentry, we find that neither a uniform traffic ticket nor an arrest warrant operates to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the magistrate court. Conversely, the absence of a uniform traffic ticket or arrest warrant does not render a magistrate’s court conviction a nullity.
Based on the foregoing, we disagree with the PCR judge’s reliance on Wright as the lack of a warrant under section 22-3-710 does not negate the jurisdiction of the magistrate court.[4] As will be discussed, we find the reasoning in Wright is flawed and has been implicitly overruled by subsequent decisions issued by this Court.
In Wright, which was decided in 1940 prior to the enactment of sections 56-7-10 and 56-7-15, the defendant was convicted before the Mayor’s Court in the Town of Honea Path of driving under the influence. Wright, 194 S.C. at 463, 9 S.E.2d at 925. The defendant appealed, arguing his conviction was a nullity because no warrant was issued setting forth the nature and grounds of the accusations against him. Id. at 466, 9 S.E.2d at 926. In response, the Town contended it was not necessary to issue a warrant in a municipal court where the arrest was made for an offense committed in the presence and view of police officers. Id.
Analyzing the precursor to section 22-3-710, this Court rejected the Town’s contention and reasoned:
There is a marked difference between the arrest of an offender by an officer without a warrant, and proceedings before a magistrate which include formal charges supported by oath, bail, and trial. Nor does the provision in Section 930, to the effect that proceedings before magistrates shall be summary, dispense with the very process which gives them jurisdiction. Without doubt, the administration of the law, and the rights of persons charged with crime can best be served by a due observance of statutory requirements. It is the constitutional right of a person charged with a criminal offense to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Article I, Section 18 of the Constitution. When a warrant is issued, substantially setting forth the offense, and the verdict of the jury, or that of the magistrate, is endorsed thereon, this paper becomes original evidence, and prevents any possibility of the prisoner being again tried for the same offense. And this was no doubt one of the reasons which moved the Legislature to require that all prosecutions be commenced by the issuance of a warrant. And because the rights of the accused are not only of interest to him, but concern the state, the statutory requirement may not be waived.
Id. at 468-69, 9 S.E.2d at 927.[5]
Thirteen years later, this Court recognized the flawed analysis in Wright when it issued its opinion in State v. Langford, 223 S.C. 20, 73 S.E.2d 854 (1953), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005). In Langford, the defendant was arrested without a warrant for DUI after the alleged offense was committed in view of the arresting officers. Id. at 23, 73 S.E.2d at 855. The defendant was released on bond. When the defendant failed to appear before the municipal court, the defendant’s bond was forfeited and the violation was reported to the State Highway Department. Approximately three years later, the defendant was arrested and charged as a second offender. Id. at 24, 73 S.E.2d at 855. During the trial of this offense, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the grounds the first offense was a nullity as the municipal court did not have jurisdiction and there had never been a lawful forfeiture of bail to constitute a first offense. Id. After the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion, the State appealed. Id.
The primary issue on appeal involved the question of whether there can be a valid forfeiture of bail where no arrest warrant had been issued. This Court, however, also discussed the jurisdictional implications of the precursor to section 22-3-710. Id. at 26, 73 S.E.2d at 856-57. In prefacing its discussion, this Court noted the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the person. Id. In doing so, this Court expressed its disagreement with the holdings in Wright and Praser.
Although this Court acknowledged that it was not “called upon now to pass upon the legality of the trial and conviction of an accused without a warrant,” it nevertheless espoused the following:
There is no constitutional requirement in this State that criminal prosecutions in inferior courts shall be commenced by the issuance of a warrant. The provision in Section 930 of the 1942 Code that all proceedings in such courts ‘shall be commenced on information under oath * * * upon which, and only which, shall a warrant of arrest issue’, cannot reasonably be construed as forbidding any steps in the judicial process until an information under oath is filed.
Id. at 31, 73 S.E.2d at 859.
Two decades later, this Court issued a series of opinions that appear to implicitly overrule the Wright decision. See State v. Prince, 262 S.C. 89, 91, 202 S.E.2d 645, 646 (1974) (analyzing precursor to section 56-7-10 and rejecting defendant’s contention that the magistrate court was without jurisdiction of his person to hear DUI case because no arrest warrant had been issued as the statute “expressly provides that service of the uniform traffic summons ‘shall vest all traffic courts with jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the charge for which such ticket was issued and served'”; finding authorities relied upon by defendant were inapplicable “because they involved trials antedating the 1971 statute”); State v. Fennell, 263 S.C. 216, 220, 209 S.E.2d 433, 434 (1974) (citing Praser, Wright, and Langford and stating “[t]he issuance of either a uniform traffic ticket or a warrant charging the respondent with the offense of reckless driving was necessary to give the magistrate jurisdiction to dispose of that particular offense” (emphasis added)); State v. Biehl, 271 S.C. 201, 203, 246 S.E.2d 859, 860 (1978) (recognizing that section 56-7-10 “does not repeal [section] 22-3-710 . . . [i]t merely provides a method of acquiring jurisdiction in traffic cases tried in ‘all traffic courts'”; finding issuance of a uniform traffic ticket vests jurisdiction in the traffic court to hear a case involving an offense which the officer, who issued the summons, did not actually see, and, “[t]he issuance of the uniform traffic ticket merely summons the accused person to appear before a magistrate, where he may submit any contention relative to the preservation of his rights”); see also City of Goose Creek v. Brady, 288 S.C. 20, 21, 339 S.E.2d 509, 510 (1986) (citing Biehl and finding issuance of a uniform traffic ticket was sufficient and an arrest warrant unnecessary under section 22-3-710 in order to charge and try defendant in municipal court with DUI and driving left of center; recognizing that a uniform traffic ticket complied with constitutional mandates where it apprised the defendant of the charge as well as the time, date, and place the offense allegedly occurred).
In 1990, the General Assembly enacted section 56-7-15, which specifically references section 56-7-10, to expand the list of offenses for which a uniform traffic ticket may be used to arrest a person and to authorize the magistrate court to hear these offenses. This enactment, however, did not operate to increase the subject matter jurisdiction of the magistrate court as the punishment for the offense for which the traffic ticket is issued must be “within the jurisdiction of magistrates court and municipal court.” Id. § 56-7-15(A).
Based on the above-outlined case and statutory evolution, we find the PCR judge’s reliance on Wright was erroneous as was his ultimate decision to vacate Bayly’s conviction. Section 56-7-15 authorized the officer to issue a uniform traffic ticket for simple possession of marijuana as this offense was committed in his presence and the punishment for this offense fell within the purview of the magistrate court. Specifically, simple possession of marijuana is classified as a misdemeanor that is punishable by not more than thirty days’ imprisonment or a fine not less than $100 or more than $200. S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(d)(4) (Supp. 2010). As previously stated, section 22-3-540 provides for magistrate courts to have exclusive jurisdiction of all criminal cases in which punishment does not exceed a fine of $100 or imprisonment for thirty days and section 22-3-550(A) increases the amount of the maximum fine to $500. Thus, we find no procedural or jurisdictional defects that operated to invalidate Bayly’s conviction.
III.
Accordingly, we reverse the PCR judge’s order as it was controlled by an error of law. See Bailey v. State, 392 S.C. 422, 709 S.E.2d 671 (2011) (recognizing that this Court will reverse the decision of the PCR judge when it is controlled by an error of law).
REVERSED.[6]
TOAL, C.J., KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in a separate opinion.
JUSTICE PLEICONES: I concur in result but write separately because I would not employ the reasoning of State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005), in determining this case, as I believe it inapposite. I believe the Constitution and statutory law govern.
Use of a uniform traffic ticket is authorized for offenses “committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer if the punishment is within the jurisdiction of magistrates court and municipal court.” S.C. Code Ann. §56-7-15(A) (Supp. 2011). The jurisdiction of magistrates court is limited to those offenses subject to fines or forfeitures not exceeding five hundred dollars, imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both. S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-550(A) (Supp. 2011). Thus, a uniform traffic ticket may be issued for any offense that is both committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer and subject to a maximum penalty of no more than thirty days’ imprisonment and a five hundred dollar fine.
In this case, a traffic ticket was issued for simple possession of marijuana when the law enforcement officer discovered the marijuana in respondent’s constructive possession. The offense was thus committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer. As the majority recognizes, the maximum penalty for conviction under § 44-53-370(d)(4) for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is thirty days’ imprisonment and a fine of $200. Thus, issuance of a uniform traffic ticket was permissible under §§ 56-7-15(A) and 22-3-550(A).
A magistrates court has jurisdiction over offenses for which valid arrest warrants have issued pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-710. A uniform traffic ticket may substitute for the arrest warrant pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-10 (Supp. 2011) (“The service of the uniform traffic ticket shall vest all traffic, recorders’ and magistrates’ courts with jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of the charge for which the ticket was issued and served.”). As noted above, § 56-7-15(A) allows the use of uniform traffic tickets in lieu of the arrest warrant required under § 22-3-710. See also S.C. Const. art. V, § 26 (“The General Assembly shall provide for [magistrates’] terms of office and their civil and criminal jurisdiction.”). Thus, a properly issued uniform traffic ticket vests magistrates court with jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the related charge, and I agree with the majority that the magistrates court had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the offense in this case.
I disagree that the General Assembly’s grant of general subject matter jurisdiction in §§ 22-3-540 and 22-3-550 is sufficient to confer the authority to exercise jurisdiction in the face of the requirements of §§ 22-3-710, 56-7-10, and 56-7-15(A).
The majority cites State v. Gentry, supra, for the proposition that an indictment is not necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction on a circuit court; by analogy, neither an arrest warrant nor a uniform traffic ticket is necessary to vest a magistrates court with jurisdiction. Recently this Court, in rejecting a subject matter jurisdiction argument, clarified that “Gentry merely held that a defendant must challenge an indictment prior to the swearing of the jury. Because the sufficiency of the indictment is not at issue here, Gentry is inapposite.” State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 120, 716 S.E.2d 895, 905-06 (2011). Since we have no challenge to the sufficiency of the uniform traffic ticket here, Gentry is inapposite. Moreover, the General Assembly provided for indictment or waiver. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-23-130 (2003). It has not chosen to provide for a defendant’s ability to waive the warrant or ticket. See Town of Honea Path v. Wright, 194 S.C. 461, 9 S.E.2d 924 (1940). Whether couched as an issue of subject matter jurisdiction or as the court’s jurisdiction, I believe a magistrates court conviction obtained without one of the specified charging documents is a nullity. Id.
I therefore concur only in the result reached by the majority.
[1] Section 22-3-710 states, “All proceedings before magistrates in criminal cases shall be commenced on information under oath, plainly and substantially setting forth the offense charged, upon which, and only which, shall a warrant of arrest issue.” S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-710 (2007).
[2] Section 56-7-10 states, “There will be a uniform traffic ticket used by all law enforcement officers in arrests for traffic offenses and for the following additional offenses: [list of offenses] . . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-10 (Supp. 2010).
[3] See 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest § 21 (2007) (“The purpose of stating the offense on an arrest warrant is to provide notice to the person being taken into custody of the charges alleged against him or her.”).
[4] Furthermore, it is of some import that section 22-3-710 is contained within the “Criminal Procedure” section of Title 22 and not the “Criminal Jurisdiction” section.
[5] Notably, the Court in reaching its decision relied primarily on the case of State v. Praser, 173 S.C. 284, 175 S.E. 551 (1934), wherein the defendant was convicted in municipal court for breach of the peace and vagrancy. On appeal, this Court vacated the defendant’s conviction for vagrancy on the ground that no warrant had been issued for this offense as the defendant was orally charged during the proceedings for the breach of the peace offense. Id. at 286, 175 S.E. at 551. We believe Praser should not have served as the basis for the Wright decision due to the significant factual differences. Unlike the defendant in Praser, Wright was on notice of the charged offense as he was apprised of the DUI charge at the time the officers arrested him.
[6] Justice Pleicones disagrees with our reliance on State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005) in analyzing the question regarding subject matter jurisdiction. He opines that Gentry is inapposite because Gentry merely concerned the appropriate time to raise a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment. He is correct that Gentry reiterates that the insufficiency of an indictment must be raised prior to the swearing of the jury. However, he overlooks the fact that the primary issue in Gentry was a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. Specifically, the subject matter jurisdiction challenge was based on an alleged insufficiency in the indictment, not the timeliness of the challenge to the insufficiency in the indictment. Justice Pleicones acknowledged this fact when he authored the opinion in State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 614 S.E.2d 623 (2005), wherein he relied almost exclusively on Gentry to find that extraterritorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction. Indisputably,Gentry is the seminal case in our jurisprudence that deals in concert with subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of an indictment. We would note that, aside from his disagreement with the import of Gentry, the concurrence merely restates the majority opinion.
