THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Kenneth Bozeman, Appellant,

v.

The State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Fairfield County
 Paul E. Short, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-035
Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January 14, 2005

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth Bozeman appeals a circuit court order denying his writ of habeas corpus, which alleged the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the solicitor failed to sign the indictment.  We find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant Bozeman relief.  The general rule regarding the adequacy of an indictment is that “[a]n indictment is sufficient if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may plead an acquittal or conviction thereon.”  State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 374, 580 S.E.2d 785, 791 (Ct. App. 2003).

AFFIRMED [1]

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.