State v. Williams

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.

Antonio M. Williams, Appellant.

Appeal From Pickens County

 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-285

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 20, 2010

AFFIRMED

J. Falkner Wilkes and Richard Harold
Warder, both of Greenville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Antonio M. Williams appeals his
convictions for distribution of cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base
within proximity of a school, arguing the trial court erred in:  (1) refusing
to instruct the jury he could not be convicted of both crimes; and (2) failing to
consider his prior convictions as a single offense under the sentence
enhancement statute.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial
court erred in refusing to charge the requested jury instruction:  State v.
Brown, 319 S.C. 400, 408, 461 S.E.2d 828, 832 (Ct. App. 1995) (emphasizing
"that there is no prohibition against the contemporaneous prosecution by
the State for both possession with intent to distribute and distribution of
crack cocaine and the related school charges where, like this case, they arise
out of the same conduct"); Riley v. S.C., 82 F.Supp.2d 474, 478-79 (D.S.C. 2000) (citing Blockburger
v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932), and Brown, 319 S.C. at 408, 461
S.E.2d at 832, and finding our state legislature intended for the possession
within proximity of a school statute to be a separate statute providing
cumulative punishment in conjunction with the punishment proscribed by the
statute prohibiting possession of narcotics).

2.  As to whether the trial
court erred in calculating his convictions for sentence enhancement purposes:  State v. Boyd, 288
S.C. 206, 210, 341 S.E.2d 144, 146 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding "where the
violations are unrelated to one another and do not arise out of a single
incident . . . no prohibition of counting for sentencing purposes each
conviction separately" exists).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS,
JJ., concur.

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