State v. Williams

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.
James C. Williams, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001849
Appeal From Lexington County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-458
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016
AFFIRMED
James C. Williams, pro se.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and
Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: See Rule 29(b), SCRCrimP ("A motion for a new trial based on after-
discovered evidence must be made within one (1) year after the date of actual
discovery of the evidence by the defendant or after the date when the evidence
could have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence."); Jamison v.
State, 410 S.C. 456, 470, 765 S.E.2d 123, 130 (2014) ("[W]hen [an appellant]
seeks relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence following a guilty plea,
relief is appropriate only where the applicant presents evidence showing that (1)
the newly discovered evidence was discovered after the entry of the plea and, in
the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered prior to the
entry of the plea; and (2) the newly discovered evidence is of such a weight and
quality that, under the facts and circumstances of that particular case, the 'interest
of justice' requires the applicant's guilty plea to be vacated."); 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 [the appellate court] will
sustain the [trial] court's denial of such a motion unless there appears an abuse of
discretion.").
AFFIRMED.1
LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.