State v, Ryant ( 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.
Danny Ryant, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-182946
Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-647
Submitted October 1, 2012 – Filed December 5, 2012
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior
Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Danny Ryant appeals his convictions of armed robbery, burglary,
and murder. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion
for severance and (2) finding he was not entitled to the criminal records checks the
State had compiled on prospective jurors. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Ryant's motion for severance:
State v. Spears, 393 S.C. 466, 475, 713 S.E.2d 324, 328 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A
motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court."
(quoting State v. Simmons, 352 S.C. 342, 350, 573 S.E.2d 856, 860 (Ct. App.
2002))); id. at 475, 713 S.E.2d at 328-29 ("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."); State v. Halcomb, 382 S.C. 432, 439, 676 S.E.2d
149, 152 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Criminal defendants who are jointly tried for murder
are not entitled to separate trials as a matter of right."); State v. Dennis, 337 S.C.
275, 281, 523 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1999) ("The general rule allowing joint trials
applies with equal force when a defendant's severance motion is based upon the
likelihood he and a codefendant will present mutually antagonistic defenses, i.e.,
accuse one another of committing the crime."); State v. Smith, 387 S.C. 619, 625-
26, 693 S.E.2d 415, 418-19 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding the loss of the right to have
the last closing argument is not a ground upon which to grant severance); State v.
Stuckey, 347 S.C. 484, 497, 556 S.E.2d 403, 409 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding the trial
court should grant a severance "only when there is a serious risk that a joint trial
would compromise a specific trial right of a co-defendant or prevent the jury from
making a reliable judgment about a co-defendant's guilt"); State v. Crowe, 258 S.C.
258, 267, 188 S.E.2d 379, 383 (1972) (holding the refusal to grant a severance was
not error on ground that it resulted in failure of defendant to have his co-defendant
testify in his behalf when record failed to show the co-defendant would testify if a
separate trial were granted or that his testimony would exculpate the defendant).
2. As to whether the trial court erred in finding Ryant was not entitled to the
criminal records checks the State had compiled on prospective jurors: State v.
Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 474, 385 S.E.2d 839, 841 (1989) (holding a defendant is not
"entitled to criminal records checks or records of arrest" of potential jurors because
"[n]o right to discovery exists in a criminal case absent statute or court rule"); Rule
5(a)(1), SCRCrimP (providing the State is required to disclose specific
information, such as: statements of a defendant, a defendant's prior record,
documents and tangible objects the prosecution or defense may use as evidence at
trial, and reports of examinations and tests); Rule 5(a)(2), SCRCrimP (exempting
from discovery "internal prosecution documents made by the attorney for the
prosecution or other prosecution agents in connection with the investigation or
prosecution of the case"); Childs, 299 S.C. at 474, 385 S.E.2d at 841 (holding a
trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a discovery request if no statute
or court rule requires disclosure of the particular information).
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.