State v. Carr

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.

Michael A.
Carr, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

 James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-342

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 29,
2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant
Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, of Columbia; and John Gregory Hembree, of
Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael A.
Carr appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the trial court erred in
denying his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for severance.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Carr's motion
for a directed verdict:  State v.
Hernandez, 382 S.C. 620, 624, 677
S.E.2d 603, 605 (2009) ("If there is any direct evidence or
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of
the accused, [this court] must find the case was properly submitted to the
jury."); State v. Stuckey, 347 S.C. 484, 499 n.7, 556 S.E.2d 403,
411 n.7 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting this court considers only the existence or
nonexistence of evidence in reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion,
thus witness credibility is not a proper inquiry for consideration).

2. As
to whether the trial court erred in denying Carr's motion for severance: The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carr's motion for
severance.  State v. Dennis, 337 S.C. 275, 282, 523 S.E.2d 173,
176 (1999) ("Motions for a severance . . . are addressed to the
discretion of the trial court.  Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion,
this Court will not disturb the trial court's ruling on appeal.")
(citations omitted); Hughes v. State, 346 S.C. 554, 559, 552 S.E.2d 315,
317 (2001) ("An appellate court should not reverse a conviction
achieved at a joint trial in the absence of a reasonable probability that the
defendant would have obtained a more favorable result at a separate
trial.").  Further, the trial court's cautionary instruction protected
Carr's individual rights and ensured he was not prejudiced by the joint trial.  See State v. Holland, 261 S.C. 488, 494, 201 S.E.2d 118,
121 (1973) (finding trial court's cautionary instructions to the jury
protected the rights of each individual appellant and ensured there was no prejudice
arising out of their joint trial).

AFFIRMED.

FEW,
C.J., THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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