Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-108 - State v. Brice

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 Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Derrick L. Brice,        Appellant.


Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-108
Submitted February 1, 2005 – Filed February 11, 2005


AFFIRMED


Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia;  and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Derrick L. Brice appeals from his conviction for distribution of crack cocaine arguing the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment failed to allege he “knowingly” distributed crack cocaine.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Gill, 355 S.C. 234, 584 S.E.2d 432 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding the “knowingly” element is not an essential element of distribution of crack cocaine and is not required to be alleged in the indictment to confer subject matter jurisdiction).

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.