Retana v. State

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
Tippy Marie Retana, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2012-206648
Appeal From Lee County
John Milling, Circuit Court Judge
John Milling, Post-Conviction Relief Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-309
Submitted June 1, 2014 – Filed August 6, 2014
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, both
of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of her
application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We find evidence supports the PCR
court's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive her right to
a direct appeal; accordingly, we grant certiorari and proceed with a review of the
direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).
Petitioner appeals her convictions for murder and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in admitting letters
she wrote to a witness because the State violated Rule 5, SCRCrimP, by not
disclosing the letters during discovery. We find the State did not have possession
of the letters until after Petitioner's trial was underway, and it turned them over to
Petitioner immediately upon receiving them from the witness. Accordingly, we
find the State did not violate Rule 5, SCRCrimP, and the trial court properly
admitted the letters. See State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 136, 731 S.E.2d 604,
609 (Ct. App. 2012) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence falls within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an
abuse of that discretion."); State v. Gulledge, 326 S.C. 220, 226, 487 S.E.2d 590,
593 (1997) ("[I]f the prosecution does not have the material or evidence sought by
the defense actually in its possession, disclosure is not required.").
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.