Birch v. State

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

Vante R. Birch, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-206672

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Trial Court Judge
Kristi Lea Harrington, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-346
Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed July 15, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ashleigh Rayanna Wilson, of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Vante Birch was convicted of armed robbery. He appeals from
the denial and dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing
his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object under Rule 613(b), SCRE, to
the admission of a co-defendant's prior inconsistent statement. We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Ard v. Catoe, 372 S.C.
318, 331, 642 S.E.2d 590, 596 (2007) (stating an appellate court will uphold the
factual findings of a PCR court if there is any evidence of probative value to
support them); Rule 613(b), SCRE ("If a witness does not admit that he has made
the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is
admissible."); State v. Copeland, 278 S.C. 572, 581, 300 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1982)
(allowing testimony of prior inconsistent statements to be used as substantive
evidence when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination);
State v. Blalock, 357 S.C. 74, 80, 591 S.E.2d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2003) ("In
determining whether a witness has admitted making a prior inconsistent statement
and thereby obviated the need for extrinsic proof, the courts of our state and other
jurisdictions have held that the witness must admit making the prior statement
unequivocally and without qualification."); id. at 80, 591 S.E.2d at 636
("Generally, where the witness has responded with anything less than an
unequivocal admission, trial courts have been granted wide latitude to allow
extrinsic evidence proving the statement."); State v. Carmack, 388 S.C. 190, 201-
02, 694 S.E.2d 224, 230 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding the witness "did not
unequivocally admit making a prior inconsistent statement" when he testified the
statement was accurate but indicated details were missing from it); In re Richard
D., 388 S.C. 95, 97-100, 693 S.E.2d 447, 448-50 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding witness's
prior statement that another person was involved in crime was admissible as
substantive evidence when witness testified the same person was not involved).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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