State v. Johnson ( 2015 )

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.
Daqwan M. Johnson, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-212696
Appeal From Richland County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-192
Submitted March 1, 2015 – Filed April 8, 2015
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, and
Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Daqwan M. Johnson appeals his convictions for murder and
attempted murder, arguing the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a
continuance and (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence of his alleged gang
affiliation. Johnson argues he should be granted a new trial under State v.
Langford1 due to the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance: State v. Meggett, 398 S.C.
516, 523, 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("The denial of a motion for a
continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be
disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice.");
Langford, 400 S.C. at 436, 735 S.E.2d at 479 ("Our determination that section
1-7-330 violates separation of powers is not dispositive . . . . To warrant reversal,
[a defendant] must demonstrate that he sustained prejudice as a result of the
solicitor setting when his case was called for trial. ").
2. As to the evidence of Johnson's alleged gang affiliation: State v. Page, 378 S.C.
476, 483, 663 S.E.2d 357, 360 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Whether a person opens the door
to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence during the course of a trial is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Brown, 344 S.C.
70, 75, 543 S.E.2d 552, 555 (2001) ("The erroneous admission of character
evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if its impact is minimal in the
context of the entire record."); State v. Kirton, 381 S.C. 7, 37-38, 671 S.E.2d 107,
122-23 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding the introduction of inadmissible evidence is
harmless when the evidence is merely cumulative to other unobjected-to evidence).
AFFIRMED.2
THOMAS, KONDUROS, AND GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
400 S.C. 421, 735 S.E.2d 471 (2012) (ruling section 1-7-330 of the South
Carolina Code (2005), which vests exclusive control of the criminal docket in the
circuit solicitor, is unconstitutional).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.