State v. Wright

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.

Timothy James Wright, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000636

Appeal From Charleston County
J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-448
Heard October 4, 2017 – Filed December 6, 2017

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek and
Kristy Grafton Goldberg, of Law Office of Kristy
Goldberg, LLC, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant
Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., of Columbia; and
Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston; all for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Timothy James Wright appeals his sentences for murder and
possession of a weapon during a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in
considering information during the sentencing hearing that was obtained from prior
unrelated incident reports regarding crimes for which he was not convicted. At his
sentencing hearing, Wright initially argued the trial court could not consider the
incident reports. However, Wright later conceded he was not requesting that the
trial court refrain from considering the incident reports but instead requesting the
trial court "temper [its] consideration" of the incident reports. Therefore, Wright
waived any objection to the trial court's consideration of the prior incident reports.
Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In
criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); In re M.B.H.,
387 S.C. 323, 326, 692 S.E.2d 541, 542 (2010) ("A sentence will not be overturned
absent an abuse of discretion . . . ."); State v. Bryant, 372 S.C. 305, 315–16, 642
S.E.2d 582, 588 (2007) (explaining an issue conceded at trial cannot be argued on
appeal); State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 195, 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (holding
appellant waived an issue for appellate review because he acquiesced to the trial
court's ruling).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.