Where defendant’s first Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP, motion merely sought to correct clerical errors in order to clarify the sentencing sheets, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant’s second Rule 29(a) motion – which sought a reduced sentence based on a codefendant’s lighter sentence – because the second Rule 29(a) motion was in no way related to the first Rule 29(a) motion.
We reinstate the original sentence, as clerically amended.
In a criminal case, once the term of court ends, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider additional matters unless a party files a timely post-trial motion. Rule 29(a) provides that a post-trial motion “shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the sentence.”
Successive Rule 29(a) motions are generally not permitted. However, where a second Rule 29(a) motion is related to the disposition of the first Rule 29(a) motion, the trial court retains authority to hear and dispose of the subsequent motion, provided the subsequent motion is filed within 10 days of the disposition of the prior post-trial motion. That did not occur here.
State v. Pfeiffer (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-036-19, 4 pp.) (John Kittredge, J.) Appealed from the Circuit Court in Pickens County (J. Cordell Maddox, J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Alan Wilson, S. Creighton Waters and Brian Petrano for petitioner; Ralph Gleaton and William Yarborough for respondent. S.C. S. Ct.