Bayly v. State

*301 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 *302 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 *303 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-