Robinson motion in South Carolina

2022State v. Harris, 413 S.C. 454, 457 , 776 S.E.2d 365, 366 (2015).

2022State v. Harris, 413 S.C. 454, 457 , 776 S.E.2d 365, 366 (2015).

2023See Varat v. Bryant, 284 S.C. 289, 291 , 325 S.E.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1985) ("Motions for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court], and [its] ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); Purex Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390 , 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982) ("Whether a judge does or does not abuse his discretion depends upon the facts before him at the time."); Rule 11(b), SCRCP ("Written notice of change of attorney must be served as provided by Rule 5."); Rule 5(d), SCRCP ("All papers required to be served upon a party. . . shall

2023See Varat v. Bryant, 284 S.C. 289, 291 , 325 S.E.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1985) ("Motions for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court], and [its] ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); Purex Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390 , 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982) ("Whether a judge does or does not abuse his discretion depends upon the facts before him at the time."); Rule 11(b), SCRCP ("Written notice of change of attorney must be served as provided by Rule 5."); Rule 5(d), SCRCP ("All papers required to be served upon a party. . . shall

2023See State v. Cory D., 339 S.C. 107, 118 , 529 S.E.2d 20, 26 (2000). ("The term 'abuse of discretion' has no opprobrious implication and may be found if the conclusions reached by the [trial] court are without reasonable factual support.").

2023See State v. Cory D., 339 S.C. 107, 118 , 529 S.E.2d 20, 26 (2000). ("The term 'abuse of discretion' has no opprobrious implication and may be found if the conclusions reached by the [trial] court are without reasonable factual support.").

2023See In re Vairin M., 647 N.W.2d 208, 219 (Wis. 2002) ("As grounds for the [motion to remand jurisdiction], the juvenile must allege a new factor that . . . likely would have affected the [family] court's determination that it would be contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public for the [family] court to hear the case."). detention orders, which resulted "in him committing more egregious criminal offenses." Because the new evidence did not diminish the seriousness of the offense, it did not lower Robinson's culpability in the murder, and it would not have changed the outcome

2023See Germain, 278 S.C. at 509 , 299 S.E.2d at 335 ("Appellant has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record upon which this Court can make its decision."); Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal.").

2023See Germain, 278 S.C. at 509 , 299 S.E.2d at 335 ("Appellant has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record upon which this Court can make its decision."); Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal.").

2023See Varat v. Bryant, 284 S.C. 289, 291 , 325 S.E.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1985) ("Motions for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court], and [its] ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); Purex Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390 , 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982) ("Whether a judge does or does not abuse his discretion depends upon the facts before him at the time."); Rule 11(b), SCRCP ("Written notice of change of attorney must be served as provided by Rule 5."); Rule 5(d), SCRCP ("All papers required to be served upon a party. . . shall

2023See Varat v. Bryant, 284 S.C. 289, 291 , 325 S.E.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1985) ("Motions for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court], and [its] ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); Purex Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390 , 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982) ("Whether a judge does or does not abuse his discretion depends upon the facts before him at the time."); Rule 11(b), SCRCP ("Written notice of change of attorney must be served as provided by Rule 5."); Rule 5(d), SCRCP ("All papers required to be served upon a party. . . shall

2018See Brown, 401 S.C. at 87 , 736 S.E.2d at 265 ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial court's ruling if there is any evidence to support it; the appellate court may reverse only for clear error.").

2018See Brown, 401 S.C. at 87 , 736 S.E.2d at 265 ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial court's ruling if there is any evidence to support it; the appellate court may reverse only for clear error.").

2011See State v. Weston , 367 S.C. 279, 292 , 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (holding "[w]hen ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight").

2011See State v. Weston , 367 S.C. 279, 292 , 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (holding "[w]hen ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight").

2006Compare State v. Dozier, 263 S.C. 267 , 210 S.E.2d 225 (1974) (holding that where a non-escapee is imprisoned in another state while contesting extradition, he is entitled to credit on any subsequent South Carolina sentence) with Kephart v. State, 277 S.C. 395 , 289 S.E.2d 402 (1982) (holding that escapee’s time spent imprisoned in Pennsylvania' contesting extradition should not be credited toward his remaining armed robbery sentence in South Carolina). 5 Finally, we note that several other states have also ruled an escapee cannot be credited with time served in another jurisdiction on a subse

2006Compare State v. Dozier, 263 S.C. 267 , 210 S.E.2d 225 (1974) (holding that where a non-escapee is imprisoned in another state while contesting extradition, he is entitled to credit on any subsequent South Carolina sentence) with Kephart v. State, 277 S.C. 395 , 289 S.E.2d 402 (1982) (holding that escapee’s time spent imprisoned in Pennsylvania' contesting extradition should not be credited toward his remaining armed robbery sentence in South Carolina). 5 Finally, we note that several other states have also ruled an escapee cannot be credited with time served in another jurisdiction on a subse

2006Compare State v. Dozier, 263 S.C. 267 , 210 S.E.2d 225 (1974) (holding that where a non-escapee is imprisoned in another state while contesting extradition, he is entitled to credit on any subsequent South Carolina sentence) with Kephart v. State, 277 S.C. 395 , 289 S.E.2d 402 (1982) (holding that escapee’s time spent imprisoned in Pennsylvania' contesting extradition should not be credited toward his remaining armed robbery sentence in South Carolina). 5 Finally, we note that several other states have also ruled an escapee cannot be credited with time served in another jurisdiction on a subse

2006Compare State v. Dozier, 263 S.C. 267 , 210 S.E.2d 225 (1974) (holding that where a non-escapee is imprisoned in another state while contesting extradition, he is entitled to credit on any subsequent South Carolina sentence) with Kephart v. State, 277 S.C. 395 , 289 S.E.2d 402 (1982) (holding that escapee’s time spent imprisoned in Pennsylvania' contesting extradition should not be credited toward his remaining armed robbery sentence in South Carolina). 5 Finally, we note that several other states have also ruled an escapee cannot be credited with time served in another jurisdiction on a subse