State v. Shows ( 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.
    Ronald Jeffery Shows, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2012-207786
    Appeal From Lexington County
    Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-446
    Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed December 4, 2013
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
    Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia,
    for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: State v. Grace, 
    350 S.C. 19
    , 23, 
    564 S.E.2d 331
    , 333 (Ct. App. 2002)
    ("[A trial court] has wide discretion when deciding whether to consolidate charges
    for trial and its decision will only be overturned when an abuse of discretion has
    occurred."); State v. Rice, 
    368 S.C. 610
    , 613, 
    629 S.E.2d 393
    , 395 (Ct. App. 2006)
    ("An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is unsupported by the
    evidence or controlled by an error of law."); State v. Cutro, 
    365 S.C. 366
    , 374, 
    618 S.E.2d 890
    , 894 (2005) ("[W]hen 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 discretion to order the indictments
    tried together, but only so long as the defendant's substantive rights are not
    prejudiced."); id. at 369-70, 
    618 S.E.2d at 891
     (affirming the trial court's decision
    to consolidate charges that occurred within an eight month span); id. at 374-75,
    
    618 S.E.2d at 894
     (stating evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted where the
    probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect and the evidence
    tends to show motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common
    scheme or plan, or identity); id. at 375, 
    618 S.E.2d at 895
     (holding offenses of two
    counts of homicide by child abuse for the deaths of two infants fit within Lyle1
    categories for common scheme or plan and motive when the offenses were similar
    in kind, place, and character); State v. Anderson, 
    318 S.C. 395
    , 399-400, 
    458 S.E.2d 56
    , 58-59 (Ct. App. 1995) (affirming the trial court's decision to deny a
    motion to sever charges and stating appellant did not suffer any prejudice when the
    trial court instructed the jury not to consider any of defendant's alleged prior
    convictions).
    AFFIRMED.2
    SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    1
    
    125 S.C. 406
    , 
    118 S.E. 803
     (1923).
    2
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-446

Filed Date: 12/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024