State v. Shivers

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.
Mario Shivers, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2010-181547
Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-646
Submitted October 1, 2012 – Filed December 5, 2012
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior
Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Mario Shivers appeals his convictions of armed robbery,
burglary, and murder. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying his
motion for severance. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Spears, 393 S.C. 466, 475, 713 S.E.2d 324, 328 (Ct.
App. 2011) ("A motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial court." (quoting State v. Simmons, 352 S.C. 342, 350, 573 S.E.2d 856, 860
(Ct. App. 2002))); id. at 475, 713 S.E.2d at 328-29 ("Where the 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
power, in [its] discretion, to order the indictments tried together if the defendant's
substantive rights would not be prejudiced."); State v. Halcomb, 382 S.C. 432, 439,
676 S.E.2d 149, 152 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Criminal defendants who are jointly tried
for murder are not entitled to separate trials as a matter of right."); State v. Dennis,
337 S.C. 275, 281, 523 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1999) ("The general rule allowing joint
trials applies with equal force when a defendant's severance motion is based upon
the likelihood he and a codefendant will present mutually antagonistic defenses,
i.e., accuse one another of committing the crime."); State v. Smith, 387 S.C. 619,
625-26, 693 S.E.2d 415, 418-19 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding the loss of the right to
have the last closing argument is not a ground upon which to grant severance);
State v. Stuckey, 347 S.C. 484, 497, 556 S.E.2d 403, 409 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding
the trial court should grant a severance "only when there is a serious risk that a
joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of a co-defendant or prevent the
jury from making a reliable judgment about a co-defendant's guilt").
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.