Can a South Carolina municipal court hear a telephone offense after the original arrest warrant was dismissed?

Plain-English summary

A Rock Hill municipal judge described a telephone-offense case whose original arrest warrant had been dismissed at a preliminary hearing. A circuit solicitor then obtained a direct grand-jury indictment and wanted the case returned to municipal court. The judge asked whether another warrant had to be issued despite the earlier dismissal. In this informal 2002 opinion, the Attorney General said a new municipal warrant was unnecessary to confer jurisdiction after indictment.

The letter explained that the offense carried a possible fine of up to five hundred dollars, placing it outside the class of cases then exclusively assigned to magistrate court. After direct indictment, the circuit court could dispose of a case within concurrent jurisdiction or remand it to municipal or magistrate court. The AG identified issuance of a bench warrant as the proper procedure for a directly indicted case, regardless of which court later handled it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Municipal courts

The AG said the grand-jury indictment itself conferred subject-matter jurisdiction in the described case, so the municipal judge did not need to reissue the dismissed arrest warrant for that purpose. The opinion tied that answer to the offense's then-available five hundred dollar fine and the distinction between exclusive and concurrent lower-court jurisdiction.

Circuit solicitors

Under the procedure described in the letter, a directly indicted case could remain in general sessions court or be remanded to municipal or magistrate court when jurisdiction was concurrent. The AG said a bench warrant was the proper procedure following direct indictment.

Common questions

Did the dismissed arrest warrant require a second municipal warrant? A: No. The AG said a new municipal warrant was not needed to confer jurisdiction after the grand jury had indicted the offense.

Could the case be sent back to municipal court?
A: The opinion said a directly indicted offense within concurrent jurisdiction could be resolved in circuit court or remanded to municipal or magistrate court.

What warrant did the AG identify for a directly indicted case? A: The letter said a bench warrant was the proper procedure regardless of where the case was ultimately disposed of.

Background and statutory framework

The judge asked about S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430 after a change in that law's punishment. The AG compared the offense's fine with the exclusive-jurisdiction threshold in S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-540, then applied the direct-indictment and remand rules stated in State v. Walker and State v. McClenton. The letter calls itself an informal opinion by an Assistant Attorney General.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430: telephone offense at issue.
• S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-540: lower-court exclusive-jurisdiction threshold discussed in the opinion.
• State v. Walker, 101 S.E.2d 826 (1958), and State v. McClenton, 37 S.E. 819 (1901): indictment and remand principles cited by the AG.

Official title

Clarification of procedure after direct indictment under the unlawful-use-of-telephone statute.

Requester

The Honorable Jane Pittman Modla, Judge, Rock Hill Municipal Court

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-17-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02may17molda.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

i
[
I. .

May 17, 2002

The Honorable Jane Pittman Modla
Judge, Rock Hill Municipal Court
120 East Black Street
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730

Re:

S.C. Code Ann.§16-17-430

Dear Judge Modla:
First, I must apologize for the delay in responding to your request for clarification regarding S.C. Code Ann.§ 16-17-430. As you may be aware, the State of South Carolina has experienced significant budget reductions due to declining revenue for the State. As a result of these reductions this Office has been forced to reallocate resources and personnel leaving certain divisions at less than full-operating capacity. We appreciate your patience in this regard. In your correspondence, you indicate that you are in need of an opinion on the following matter: An Unlawful Use of Telephone warrant, §16-17-430, issued by a Municipal Court Judge under the old felony provision was dismissed at a Preliminary Hearing. The Circuit Solicitor directly indicted the warrant (because victim had not received notice of the Preliminary Hearing.) Now, because of the law change, the Circuit Solicitor wants to remand the case to the Municipal Court. The problem concerns the charging papers. The warrant has been dismissed . This court does not prosecute indictments. This Court is hesitant to reissue a warrant on the same charge and have the defendant rearrested. A municipal judge need not issue a warrant to confer subject matter jurisdiction for a charge that has already been indicted by the grand jury. A grand jury may indict for any crime not within the exclusive jurisdiction of magistrate or municipal court, whether or not there has been an arrest warrant issued by a magistrate or municipal judge. State v. Walker, 101 S.E.2d 826 (1958). Offenses within the exclusive jurisdiction of magistrate court are criminal offenses in which the punishment does not exceed a fine of one hundred dollars or imprisonment for thirty days. S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-540. The punishment for S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430 allows for a fine of up to five hundred dollars. Therefore, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430 is not within the exclusive jurisdiction ii )

REMBERT

c. DENNIS B UILDING

~././#r1'1 (~/77;, )

•

P OST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBI A, S.C. 29211-1549

•

T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Jane Pittman Modla
Page 2
May 17, 2002

of magistrate's court and an indictment by the grand jury would properly confer subject matter jurisdiction of the accused in municipal court. Further, when a grand jury has returned an indictment for an offense over which the circuit court and the municipal/magistrate's court have concurrent jurisdiction, the court of general sessions may dispose of the case or the case may be remanded to municipal/magistrate's court. State v. McClenton, 37 S.E. 819 (1901); See also South Carolina Bench Book for Magistrates and Municipal Court Judges, Second Edition. When a case has been directly indicted, as is the situation you have described, the proper procedure is for the issuance of a bench warrant. State v. Walker, 101 S.E.2d at 829. This would appear to be the correct procedure regardless of where the case is disposed of (i.e. municipal or circuit court). I hope the information provided herein proves helpful. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor published in a manner of a formal opinion.

(
David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General

I

DKA/an