State v. Warren

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the authority to change a sentence rests exclusively within the sentencing judge's discretion and an abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions are either controlled by an error of law or lack evidentiary support
• holding an inmate's motion to reconsider her sentence was untimely because the motion was not filed within the ten day limit prescribed by Rule 29, SCRCrimP
• \The authority to change a sentence rests solely and exclusively within the discretion of the sentencing judge.\
• \The [circuit] court does not retain authority to entertain a motion which is not made within ten days of sentencing.\
• \The [circuit] court does not retain authority to entertain a motion which is not made within ten days of sentencing.\
• \The court does not retain authority to entertain a motion which is not made within ten days of sentencing.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• State v. Slocumb
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2015-03-18· cited 1×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Eberhart v. United States
  Supreme Court· 2005-10-31· cited 799×
• State v. Bryant
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2007-02-27· cited 57×
• State v. Smith
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-07-06· cited 34×
• State v. Winkler
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-08-16· cited 29×
• State v. Campbell
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2008-01-14· cited 19×
• City of Greenville v. Bane
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-11-08· cited 3×