State v. Gearhart ( 2012 )

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.
Anita Gearhart, Appellant.
__________
Appeal From Pickens County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge
__________
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-480
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed August 8, 2012
__________
AFFIRMED
__________
Scott D. Robinson, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Senior Assistant Attorney General David
Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter
Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Anita Gearhart appeals her conviction of unlawful
conduct towards a minor, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion
for severance. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Halcomb, 382 S.C. 432, 439, 676 S.E.2d 149,
152-53 (Ct. App. 2009) (''A motion for severance is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. The trial court's ruling will not be disturbed on
appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.'' (citations omitted)); State v.
Spears, 393 S.C. 466, 475, 713 S.E.2d 324, 328-29 (Ct. App. 2011) (''Where
the offenses charged in separate indictments are of the same general nature
involving connected transactions closely related in kind, place and character,
the trial [court] has the power, in [its] discretion, to order the indictments
tried together if the defendant's substantive rights would not be prejudiced.''
(internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 164, 478
S.E.2d 260, 265 (1996) (''A motion for severance is addressed to the trial
court and should not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
Charges can be joined in the same indictment and tried together where they
(1) arise out of a single chain of circumstances, (2) are proved by the same
evidence, (3) are of the same general nature, and (4) no real right of the
defendant has been prejudiced.'' (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.