State v. Johnson ( 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.
Dadrin Jerome Johnson, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2010-180607
Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-528
Submitted September 4, 2012 – Filed September 19, 2012
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant
Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Evins, 373 S.C. 404, 415, 645 S.E.2d 904, 909 (2007) ("The
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
prohibits the striking of a venire person on the basis of race or gender."); id.(holding that once a party objects to a jury strike under Batson v. Kentucky, 476
U.S. 79 (1986), the proponent of the strike must offer a facially race-neutral
explanation); id. ("Once the proponent states a reason that is race-neutral, the
burden is on the party challenging the strike to show the explanation is mere
pretext, either by showing similarly situated members of another race were seated
on the jury or that the reason given for the strike is so fundamentally implausible as
to constitute mere pretext despite a lack of disparate treatment.");
id. at 416, 645 S.E.2d at 909-10 (noting that the appellate court must give the trial
court's findings concerning purposeful discrimination great deference and not set
them aside unless clearly erroneous); State v. Wilder, 306 S.C. 535, 538, 413
S.E.2d 323, 325 (1991) ("It is within the discretion of the trial [court] to determine
purposeful discrimination based on the totality of relevant facts, including the
credibility of the solicitor." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.