State v. Shatten

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.

Yolanda Shatten, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000825

Appeal From Richland County
Bentley Price, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-439
Submitted October 1, 2021 – Filed December 8, 2021

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
and Solicitor Byron E. Gipson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Yolanda Shatten appeals her convictions for two counts of
forgery and one count of unauthorized practice of law. The trial court sentenced
Shatten to five years' imprisonment suspended to five years' probation terminable
upon payment of restitution. On appeal, Shatten argues the trial court abused its
discretion by refusing to reopen the record to admit a document Shatten wished to
use to impeach the credibility of the State's witness.

Because Shatten could have moved to admit the document during
cross-examination of the State's witness if she had brought the document to trial,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the record to admit
it. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Brenco v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 377 S.C. 124, 127, 659 S.E.2d 167,
169 (2008) ("The decision whether to reopen a record for additional evidence is
within the trial court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent
an abuse of that discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d
528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is
based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without
evidentiary support."); Spinx Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 310 S.C.
477, 482, 427 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1993) (explaining no abuse of discretion in
declining to reopen the record when party could have provided the same evidence
at trial) overruled on other grounds by Joe Harden Builders, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and
Sur. Co., 326 S.C. 231, 486 S.E.2d 89 (1997).
AFFIRMED. 1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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