State v. Smathers

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.
Tammy Smathers, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-000254
Appeal From Aiken County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-147
Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed March 18, 2015
AFFIRMED
James E. Whittle, Jr., of Johnson, Johnson, Whittle &
Lancer, PA, of Aiken, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mary Shannon Williams, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of
Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Blackwell-Selim, 392 S.C. 1, 3, 707 S.E.2d 426, 427 (2011)
("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only and is
bound by factual findings of the trial court unless an abuse of discretion is
shown."); id. at 3, 707 S.E.2d at 427-28 ("The appellate court does not reevaluate
the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence but simply
determines whether the trial [court]'s ruling is supported by any evidence."); S.C.
Code Ann. § 16-25-90 (Supp. 2014) ("[A]n inmate who . . . pled guilty [to] . . . an
offense against a household member is eligible for parole after serving one-fourth
of his prison term when the inmate at the time he pled guilty to . . . an offense
against the household member . . . presented credible evidence of a history of
criminal domestic violence . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-10 (Supp. 2014)
(stating household member includes a spouse); State v. Grooms, 343 S.C. 248, 253,
540 S.E.2d 99, 101 (2000) ("[Section] 16-25-90 requires the defendant to do more
than produce evidence of a history of criminal domestic violence which she
believes is credible. Use of the term 'credible evidence' indicates the legislature
intended the defendant's evidence to be, in fact, trustworthy, not simply plausible.
Accordingly, the defendant must do more than simply present evidence; she must
persuade the trial [court] her evidence is reliable. Moreover, we find the
legislature did not intend the mere production of evidence to automatically result in
earlier parole eligibility. If that were the case, as appellant suggests, then all
individuals who are convicted of an offense against household members would be
eligible for parole after service of one-fourth of their prison term simply by
testifying they suffered a history of criminal domestic violence at the hands of their
own victims." (citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.