State v. Lockhart

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.

Anthony Lockhart, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-161727

Appeal From Calhoun County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-599
Submitted October 1, 2012 – Filed October 31, 2012

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General J. Anthony Mabry, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Miller, 367 S.C. 329, 336, 626 S.E.2d 328, 332 (2006) (holding
error is harmless if, after reviewing the entire record, the reviewing court finds the
error "could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial"); State v. Santiago,
370 S.C. 153, 164-65, 634 S.E.2d 23, 29 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding even if the trial
court erred in excluding evidence, the error is harmless if there is overwhelming
evidence of the defendant's guilt); State v. Fossick, 333 S.C. 66, 70, 508 S.E.2d 32,
34 (1998) (holding to determine whether an issue of witness credibility constitutes
harmless error, a court considers "the importance of the witness's testimony to the
prosecution's case, whether the witness's testimony was cumulative, whether other
evidence corroborates or contradicts the witness's testimony, the extent of cross-
examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the State's case").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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