State v. Johnson ( 2016 )

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.
Marvin Brock Johnson, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002435
Appeal From Aiken County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-476
Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed November 16, 2016
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of
Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Marvin Brock Johnson appeals his conviction for shoplifting,
arguing the trial court erred in (1) failing to exercise its discretion when it refused
to accept his Alford plea, (2) admitting his alleged prior bad acts as evidence of
common scheme or plan and intent, and (3) admitting his prior bad acts by
determining the State had proved the acts by clear and convincing evidence. We
affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in failing to exercise its discretion when it
refused to accept the Alford plea: North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 (1970)
(holding a trial court does not "commit constitutional error" by accepting an Alford
plea); id. at 37 ("An individual accused of [a] crime may voluntarily, knowingly,
and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is
unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.");
id. at 38 n.11 ("Our holding does not mean that a trial [court] must accept every
constitutionally valid guilty plea merely because a defendant wishes so to plead.");
State v. Paris, 354 S.C. 1, 3, 578 S.E.2d 751, 752 (Ct. App. 2003) ("[A] trial court
'can indeed reject a guilty plea because the defendant protests innocence.'" (quoting
United States v. Cox, 923 F.2d 519, 524 (7th Cir. 1991))).
2. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the alleged prior bad acts as
evidence of common scheme or plan and intent: State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545
S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (providing appellate courts "do not review a trial [court's]
ruling on the admissibility of other bad acts by determining de novo whether the
evidence rises to the level of clear and convincing"); id. ("If there is any evidence
to support the admission of the bad act evidence, the trial [court's] ruling will not
be disturbed on appeal."); Rule 404(b), SCRE ("Evidence of other crimes, wrongs,
or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action
in conformity therewith."); id. ("It may, however, be admissible to show motive,
identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or
accident, or intent."); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice . . . ."); State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 24, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008)
("The determination of the prejudicial effect of the evidence must be based on the
entire record and the result will generally turn on the facts of each case."); State v.
Martucci, 380 S.C. 232, 250, 669 S.E.2d 598, 607 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A trial
[court's] decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect
of relevant evidence should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances.").
3. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the prior bad acts by determining
the State had proved the acts by clear and convincing evidence: Wilson, 345 S.C. at
6, 545 S.E.2d at 829 (providing appellate courts "do not review a trial [court's]
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
ruling on the admissibility of other bad acts by determining de novo whether the
evidence rises to the level of clear and convincing"); id. ("If there is any evidence
to support the admission of the bad act evidence, the trial [court's] ruling will not
be disturbed on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.