State v. Housey ( 2011 )

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.

Dwayne Housey, Appellant.

---

Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-026
Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed January 25, 2011

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wlilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dwayne Housey was convicted of trafficking cocaine in an amount of more than one hundred grams and was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment.  On appeal, Housey argues the trial court erred in allowing excessive conspiracy testimony into evidence to support the trafficking charge because the testimony was prejudicial character evidence that had no probative value.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mouzon, 321 S.C. 27, 32, 467 S.E.2d 122, 125 (Ct. App. 1995) ("Conspiracy is a combination or agreement between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or unlawful object, or achieving by criminal or unlawful means an object that is neither criminal nor unlawful.  It may be proven by the specific overt acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy, but the gravamen of the offense of conspiracy is the agreement, combination, or mutual understanding." (citations omitted)); State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 868 (1993) ("The State is entitled to prove the whole history of the conspiracy, from its commencement to its conclusion, as well as overt acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy since from those overt acts, an inference may be drawn as to the existence and object of the conspiracy." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Harris, 342 S.C. 191, 202, 535 S.E.2d 652, 657 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding evidence does not constitute "other crimes, wrongs or acts" under Rule 404(b), SCRE "if [the evidence] arose out of the same . . . series of transactions as the charged offense . . . [and] constituted predicate evidence necessary to provide the context to the drug distribution scheme that took place within the charged time frame." (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.