MO-002 - State v. Parkhurst

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Tiphani Marie Parkhurst, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2015-002404 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from Spartanburg County R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2017-MO-002 Heard December 15, 2016 – Filed March 1, 2017 REVERSED Appellate Defender Lara M. Caudy, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Parkhurst, Op. No. 2015-UP-446 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Sept. 9, 2015), affirming Petitioner Tiphani Marie Parkhurst's conviction and sentence for trafficking in methamphetamine1 based on evidence of theoretical yield, which the State relied on to prove Petitioner attempted to possess ten grams or more of methamphetamine. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and for the reasons expressed in our opinion resolving the appeal of Petitioner's codefendant. See State v. Cain, Op. No. 27694 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 5, 2017) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 1 at 22) (holding the trial court should have granted Cain's motion for a directed verdict because the State presented no "evidence showing Cain could actually have produced ten grams or more of methamphetamine with the equipment and ingredients he had at his disposal"). REVERSED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justices Costa M. Pleicones and James E. Moore, concur. 1 "A person who knowingly . . . attempts to become in actual or constructive possession of ten grams or more of methamphetamine . . . is guilty of a felony which is known as trafficking in methamphetamine . . . ." S.C. Code Ann. § 4453-375(C) (Supp. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.