State v, Grant ( 2010 )

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 Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Clift Grant, III, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Berkeley County
Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-401
Submitted September 1, 2010 –Filed September 14, 2010 

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clift Grant, III appeals his sentence for voluntary manslaughter, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Smith, 276 S.C. 494, 498, 280 S.E.2d 200, 202 (1981) (holding the trial court's ruling on a motion for reconsideration will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion);  State v. Follin, 352 S.C. 235, 257, 573 S.E.2d 812, 824 (Ct. App. 2002) ("[W]hen the record clearly reflects an appropriate basis for a disparate sentence, the sentencing judge may impose a different sentence on a co-defendant in a criminal trial."); Brooks v. State, 325 S.C. 269, 271-72, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997) ("A trial judge is allowed broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits. A sentence is not excessive if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of prejudice against a defendant." (citations omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-50 (2003) ("A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.").   

AFFIRMED.[1]

FEW, C.J., HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.