State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that a trial court lacked authority to resentence the defendant after he failed to testify pursuant to a plea agreement because the State did not timely file a Rule 29 post-trial motion. The court clarified that the term-of-court rule limits a court's authority over a particular case but does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction. The plea judge's resentencing order was reversed.

Holdings

1. The term-of-court rule is not a rule concerning subject matter jurisdiction; it limits the trial court's authority to act in a particular case after the term of court ends.
2. Under Rule 29, SCRCrimP, a post-trial motion must be made within ten days after sentencing, except for a motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence; an untimely motion cannot preserve the court's authority to act after the term of court.
3. The plea judge lacked authority to vacate Campbell's negotiated sentence and resentence him because the State failed to file a timely Rule 29 motion after sentencing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plea judge had authority to grant the State's motion to vacate Campbell's sentence and resentence him five months after his guilty plea and sentencing.
2. Whether the term-of-court rule is a rule of subject matter jurisdiction or instead a limitation on a trial court's authority to act in a particular case after the term ends.
3. Whether the State's motion to vacate Campbell's sentence was timely under Rule 29, SCRCrimP.

Disposition

reversed