THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Carl Stanley Aiken,        Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County
J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-122
Submitted December 23, 2003- Filed February 25, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Druanne D. White, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Carl Stanley Aiken appeals from his conviction and sentence for breach of trust with fraudulent intent.  In a sealed sentence, the trial court sentenced Aiken to a term of ten years imprisonment. Aiken contends the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the case because the grand jury did not true bill the indictment.  Aiken is mistaken.  The endorsement “True Bill” is stamped on the indictment, the original of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of Court for the South Carolina Court of Appeals.  The trial court, therefore, had subject matter jurisdiction of the offense.  S.C. Const. art. 1, § 11 (Supp. 2003) (“No person may be held to answer for any crime the jurisdiction over which is not within the magistrate's court, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury of the county where the crime has been committed.”); see also Anderson v. State, 338 S.C. 629, 632, 527 S.E.2d 398, 399-400 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding that the law requires a presentment of a grand jury as a condition precedent to the trial of a crime, excepting certain minor offenses).

AFFIRMED. ^[1]

GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and CURETON, A. J., concur.