State v. Greene

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.
Walter James Greene, Jr., Appellant.

__________

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge
__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-507
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed September 5, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

Appellant Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M.
Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M.
Pascoe, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Walter James Greene, Jr. appeals his convictions of
first-degree burglary, assault and battery with intent to kill, and attempted
armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
the victim's in-court identification of him because the out-of-court
identification was unduly suggestive and not reliable under the totality of the
circumstances. Because Greene's photograph did not stand out in such a way
as to render the lineup unduly suggestive, we affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Singleton, 395
S.C. 6, 13, 716 S.E.2d 332, 335 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The admission of evidence
is within the sound discretion of the [trial] court. Accordingly, a [trial]
court's decision to allow the in-court identification of an accused will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion or prejudicial legal error." (citation and
quotation marks omitted)); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127, 644 S.E.2d
693, 696 (2007) ("An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a
suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial
likelihood of irreparable misidentification."); id. (stating the determination of
the admissibility of an out-of-court identification is subject to a two-prong
inquiry: (1) whether the identification process was unduly suggestive, and (2)
whether, under a totality of the circumstances, a substantial likelihood of
irreparable misidentification existed).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.