State v. Depriest

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.

James Garfield Depriest, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-246

Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 21,
2010

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Garfield Depriest was convicted of
one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree, one
count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree, and two
counts of lewd act.  He received sentences of thirty years, twenty years,
fifteen years, and fifteen years, respectively.  He appeals, arguing the trial
court erred by refusing to sever the charges because they involved two victims,
and he contends the trial was unduly prejudicial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:  State v. Rice, 368 S.C. 610, 614, 629 S.E.2d 393, 395 (Ct. App.
2006) ("Where the offenses charged in separate indictments are of the same
general nature involving connected transactions closely related in kind, place
and character, the trial judge has the power, in his discretion, to order the
indictments tried together if the defendant's substantive rights would not be
prejudiced."); Id. at 615, 629 S.E.2d at 395 (providing charges may
be tried together where they (1) arise out of a single chain of circumstances,
(2) are proved by the same evidence, (3) are of the same general nature, and
(4) when no real right of the defendant has been prejudiced); State v. Grace,
350 S.C. 19, 23, 564 S.E.2d 331, 333 (Ct. App. 2002) ("The circuit court
has wide discretion when deciding whether to consolidate charges for trial and
its decision will only be overturned when an abuse of discretion has
occurred."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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