• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINACOUNTY OF CHARLESTONIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASRobert L. Chimento, Scott Richards, MichaelWilliamson, Jeremy Brestel, and John T.Willis,Appellants,vs.Town of Mount Pleasant,Respondent.Case No. 2009-CP-10-001551
Appellants’Brief and Memorandum of Law in Support of Appeal fromConviction in Municipal Court
William W. Wilkins NEXSEN PRUET, LLC55 East Camperdown Way (29601)Post Office Drawer 10648Greenville, South Carolina 29603-0648864.370.2211JeffreyA. PhillipsPHILLIPS LAW FIRM1425 Augusta StreetGreenville, South Carolina 29605864.233.7373Attorneys for Appellants
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................1STANDARD OF REVIEW........................................................................................................3ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................3I.NON-CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR OVERTURNING APPELLANTS’CONVICTIONS: Appellants’ Conduct Did Not Violate S.C. Code Ann. § 16-19-40(a)...............................................................................................................................3A.When faced with the issue, the South Carolina Supreme Court will likelyadopt the dominant factor test................................................................................5B.Under the dominant factor test, Texas Hold’em is not “gaming”or “gambling.”...........................................................................................................9C.A residence in which Texas Hold’em is played is not a “house used as a place of gaming.”.................................................................................................10D.Alternatively, § 16-19-40(a) is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of Appellants............................................................................................................10II.Constitutional Basis for Overturning Appellants’ Convictions......................................12A.Section 16-19-40(a) is unconstitutionallyvague and therefore unenforceable.......12B.Section 16-19-40(a) is unconstitutionallyoverbroad.............................................151. Section 16-19-40(a) is overbroad and unenforceable....................................152. Section 16-19-40(a) is severable and may be invalidated withoutinvalidating the remaining portions of § 16-19-40.........................................16CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................16
 
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCasesPage(s)
In re Allen377 P.2d 280, 281 (Cal. 1962)....................................................................................................7Berryv. State381 S.C. 630,633-34, 675 S.E.2d 425, 426-27 (2009)............................................................5, 9CityCouncil of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent466 U.S. 789, 796 (1984)..........................................................................................................15CityofColumbia v. Felder 274 S.C. 12, 13, 260 S.E.2d 453, 454 (1979)..............................................................................3Colauttiv. Franklin439 U.S. 379, 391 (1979)..........................................................................................................14Commonwealthv. Plissner 4 N.E.2d 241, 244 (Mass. 1936).................................................................................................6Darlington Theatres v. Coker 190 S.C. 282, 2 S.E.2d 782, 786 (1939)..............................................................................5, 6, 9First South Sav. Bank, Inc. v. Gold Coast Assocs., Inc.301 S.C. 158, 160, 390 S.E.2d 486, 487 (Ct.App.1990)..............................................................4Gandolfo v. Louisiana State Racing Comm'n78 So.2d 504, 509(La. 1954)......................................................................................................6Gravned v. City of Rockford408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972).....................................................................................................12Guinyard v. State260 S.C. 220, 226, 195 S.E.2d 392, 394 (1973).........................................................................12Horner v. United States147 U.S. 449, 459 (1893)............................................................................................................5Johnson v. Collins Entm’tCo.333 S.C. 96, 113, 508 S.E.2d 575, 584 (1998)...................................................................passimJohnson v. Phinney218 F.2d 303, 306 (5th Cir. 1955)...............................................................................................6Kolender v. Lawson461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)....................................................................................................12, 14
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...