State v. Watrus

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.

Gary Lee
Watrus, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-562

Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed
December 23, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: Gary
Lee Watrus pled guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor
and was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of
seven years and five years' probation.  On appeal, Watrus argues the trial
court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.[1] 
We affirm[2] pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 29(b), SCRCrimP ("A motion for a new trial
based on after-discovered evidence must be made within a reasonable period of
time after the discovery of the evidence. . . . "); State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166, 672 S.E.2d 556,
565 (2009) ("The decision whether to grant a new trial rests within the
sound discretion of the trial court, and [the appellate court] will not disturb
the trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion."); State
v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 157-58, 508 S.E.2d 857, 869 (1998) ("To
prevail on a motion for a new trial based on after discovered evidence, a
defendant must show [:] (1) the evidence
is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) the
evidence has been discovered since the trial; (3) the evidence could not have
been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) the
evidence is material; and (5) the evidence is not merely cumulative or
impeaching."). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
SHORT and WILLIAMS , JJ. concur

[1] We decline to address Watrus's motion for a reduction
in sentence because Watrus abandoned the issue on appeal. See Rule
208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (noting ordinarily the appellate courts will not review any
issue not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal); see also State v. Garner, 389
S.C. 61, 67, 697 S.E.2d 615, 618 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding an argument is
abandoned on appeal when conclusory and without supporting authority). 

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