State v. Watkins ( 2018 )

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.
Robert Max Watkins, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2016-000966
Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-103
Submitted February 1, 2018 – Filed March 7, 2018
AFFIRMED
Robert Max Watkins, pro se.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Megan Harrigan
Jameson, both of Columbia; and Solicitor William
Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Robert Watkins, pro se, appeals a circuit court order denying his
motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence. On appeal, Watkins
argues the circuit court abused its discretion by (1) denying his motion for a new
trial pursuant to Brady v. Maryland1 and (2) denying his motion for a new trial on
the grounds he did not sufficiently meet the test for a new trial based on after-
discovered evidence. We affirm2 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:
1. As to the motion for a new trial based on the alleged Brady violation: State v.
Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue
to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the [circuit court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the [circuit] court will not be
considered on appeal." (emphasis added)).
2. As to the motion for a new trial based on the after-discovered evidence: State v.
Harris, 391 S.C. 539, 545, 706 S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In order to
warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence, the
movant must show the evidence (1) is such as will probably change the result if a
new trial is granted; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been
discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material to the
issue; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching."); State v. Irvin, 270 S.C.
539, 545, 243 S.E.2d 195, 197-98 (1978) ("The granting of a new trial because of
after-discovered evidence is not favored, and this [c]ourt will sustain the [circuit]
court's denial of such a motion unless there appears an abuse of discretion."); State
v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166, 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) ("In this post-trial
setting, our jurisprudence recognizes the gatekeeping role of the [circuit] court in
making a credibility assessment."); id. at 167, 672 S.E.2d at 565 ("On review, [the
appellate court] may not make [its] own findings of fact. The deferential standard
of review constrains [the appellate court] to affirm the [circuit] court if [its decision
is] reasonably supported by the evidence.").
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.