State v. Gilbert ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Bobby Alexander Gilbert, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2009-129310
    Appeal From Darlington County
    Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-283
    Heard June 11, 2013 – Filed June 26, 2013
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
    for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
    Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and
    Assistant Attorney General Anthony Mabry, all of
    Columbia; and Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers, Jr.,
    of Bennettsville, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Bobby Alexander Gilbert appeals his convictions for murder,
    armed robbery, and grand larceny, arguing the trial court erred in granting the
    State's motion to restrike the jury based on Gilbert's alleged discriminatory use of
    peremptory juror strikes. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
    following authorities: State v. Haigler, 
    334 S.C. 623
    , 630, 
    515 S.E.2d 88
    , 91
    (1999) ("The trial court's findings regarding purposeful discrimination are
    accorded great deference and will be set aside on appeal only if clearly
    erroneous."); Payton v. Kearse, 
    329 S.C. 51
    , 59-60, 
    495 S.E.2d 205
    , 210 (1998)
    (noting once a party gives a discriminatory reason for using a jury strike, the strike
    must be disallowed because "any consideration of discriminatory factors . . . is in
    direct contravention of the purpose of [Batson v. Kentucky, 
    476 U.S. 79
     (1986)]
    which is to ensure peremptory strikes are executed in a nondiscriminatory
    manner"); State v. Shuler, 
    344 S.C. 604
    , 616, 
    545 S.E.2d 805
    , 810-11 (2001) ("[A]
    strike must be examined in light of the circumstances under which it is exercised,
    including an examination of the explanations offered for other strikes.").
    AFFIRMED.
    SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-283

Filed Date: 6/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024