Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1987

In re Corey B.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 12, 1987 · Chandler, Finney, Gregory, Harwell, Ness

291 S.C. 108; 352 S.E.2d 470; 1987 S.C. LEXIS 189

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Baker (S.C. 2015)
In the Interest of Jason T. (S.C. Ct. App. 2000)
Dover v. State (S.C. 1991)
In the Interest of Clinton P. (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)
In the Interest of Arisha K.S. (S.C. Ct. App. 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gregory, Justice:

Appellant was charged in two juvenile petitions with committing attempted first degree criminal sexual conduct. He was adjudicated delinquent upon a finding by the family court that he had committed first degree criminal sexual conduct. We reverse.

Appellant contends he could not -be found guilty of first degree criminal sexual conduct when the juvenile petitions that were filed against him alleged only the lesser included offense of attempted first degree criminal sexual conduct. We agree.

Fairness and due process require that a criminal defendant receive sufficient notice of the charges against him to enable him to prepare a defense. Butler v. State, 277 S. C. 452, 290 S. E. (2d) 1 (1982); S. C. Const. Art. I, § 14. This requirement applies in a juvenile matter as well. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 *110L. Ed. (2d) 527 (1967); see also S. C. Code Ann. § 20-7-740 (1985). Once convicted, a criminal defendant can be sentenced only upon the charges set forth or necessarily included in the terms of the indictment and not for a greater offense. Fewell v. State, 267 S. C. 17, 225 S. E. (2d) 853 (1976); see also State v. Tabory, 262 S. C. 136, 202 S. E. (2d) 852 (1974). Similarly, in a juvenile proceeding a minor cannot be found guilty of a greater offense than that alleged in the petition.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new proceeding.

Reversed and remanded.

Ness, C. J., and Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur. Harwell, J., not participating.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.