State v. Gentile ( 2017 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Michael Edward Gentile, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2015-001370
Appeal From Dorchester County
Maité Murphy, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-108
Submitted January 1, 2017 – Filed March 8, 2017
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV, of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Summerville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94, 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App.
2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment
will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse
of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is
based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support."); id.
at 98-99, 654 S.E.2d at 853-54 (explaining the court uses a two-prong test to
determine whether the period alleged in the indictment provides sufficient notice to
a defendant: "(1) whether time is a material element of the offense; and (2) whether
the time period covered by the indictment occurred prior to the return of the
indictment by the grand jury."); id. at 101, 654 S.E.2d at 855 ("Time is not a
material element of . . . committing a lewd act on a minor."); id. at 101-02, 654
S.E.2d at 855 ("[I]ndictments for a sex crime that allege offenses occurred during a
specified time period are sufficient when the circumstances of the case warrant
considering an extended time frame."); id. at 102, 654 S.E.2d at 855 ("The stealth
and repetitive nature of the alleged conduct compels identification of the broader
time period. The victim is a young child, whom one cannot reasonably expect to
recall the exact dates of the sexual abuse."); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 82-83, 409
S.E.2d 780, 781-82 (1991) (refusing to adopt a per se rule that a two year time
period in an indictment was unconstitutionally overbroad).
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.