State v. Stevens

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.

Matthew Stevens, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-198666

Appeal From Lancaster County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-047
Submitted January 1, 2013 – Filed January 30, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010) ("To
warrant reversal, a trial [court's] refusal to give a requested jury charge must be
both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant."); State v. Gilmore, 396 S.C. 72,
76, 719 S.E.2d 688, 690 (Ct. App. 2011) (noting in determining whether a
defendant is entitled to a jury charge on a lesser-included offense, "[i]f there is
evidence in the record from which the jury could infer the defendant is guilty of the
lesser-included offense, rather than the crime charged, the trial [court] must
instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense"); id. at 77, 719 S.E.2d at 691
(noting the mere existence of evidence of the lesser-included offense is insufficient
to require a jury charge and instead there must be evidence the defendant
committed the lesser-included offense instead of the charged offense).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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