State v. Hawkins

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.
Samuel Hawkins, Jr., Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2019-001645
Appeal From Greenville County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-056
Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed February 9, 2022
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant
Attorney General William Joseph Maye, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville,
all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Samuel Hawkins, Jr., appeals his convictions for murder and
grand larceny and his sentence of forty-five years' imprisonment. On appeal,
Hawkins argues the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion
to amend the murder indictment and denying his motion to quash.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's motion to amend
the indictment to include language clarifying Hawkins killed the victim "through
homicidal violence of unknown means," as the amendment did not change the
nature of the offense charged in the original indictment. Consequently, the trial
court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Hawkins's motion to quash the
indictment. We therefore affirm 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."); State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 102, 610 S.E.2d 494,
500 (2005) ("The indictment is a notice document."); Evans v. State, 363 S.C. 495,
508, 611 S.E.2d 510, 517 (2005) ("The primary purposes of an indictment are to
put the defendant on notice of what he is called upon to answer, i.e., to apprise him
of the elements of the offense and to allow him to decide whether to plead guilty or
stand trial, and to enable the circuit court to know what judgment to pronounce if
the defendant is convicted."); State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 165, 359 S.E.2d 275,
277 (1987) ("Allegations may state in the alternative the manner and
instrumentality of death, or may state that death was caused by a means or
instrumentality unknown."); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 102-03, 610 S.E.2d at 500
(explaining that the trial court should evaluate the sufficiency of an indictment "by
determining whether (1) the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and
particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, and the
defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may plead an
acquittal or conviction thereon; and (2) whether it apprises the defendant of the
elements of the offense intended to be charged"); State v. McIntire, 221 S.C. 504,
509, 71 S.E.2d 410, 412 (1952) ("The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment
is not whether it could be made more definite and certain, but whether it contains
the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently
apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet."); Joseph v. State, 351
S.C. 551, 562, 571 S.E.2d 280, 285 (2002) (finding a murder indictment sufficient
despite failing to use exact wording of indictment statute), overruled on other
grounds by Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103, 610 S.E.2d at 500; State v. Means, 367 S.C.
374, 384, 626 S.E.2d 348, 354 (2006) ("[A]n indictment passes legal muster when
it charges the crime substantially in the language of the statute prohibiting the
crime . . . ."); id. at 387, 626 S.E.2d at 356 ("[A] motion to amend an indictment
should be granted when the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the
offense or affect the sufficiency of the indictment.").
AFFIRMED.1
THOMAS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.