State v. Gunnells

THIS
OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

James Allan
Gunnells, Appellant.

Appeal From Bamberg County

 J.C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-035

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
14, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, 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 Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for
Respondent. 

PER CURIAM:  James Allan Gunnells was convicted of
first-degree burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, assault and battery with
intent to kill, use of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and
conspiracy.  He received sentences totaling life plus thirty years’
imprisonment.  Gunnells now appeals his convictions and sentences, arguing the
circuit court erred in admitting an eyewitness’ first-time identification of
him in court because the identification was suggestive and unreliable.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Lewis, 363 S.C. 37, 42-43, 609 S.E.2d 515, 518 (2005) (declining to require
trial courts to evaluate factors enunciated in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S.
188, 199 (1972), where first-time identifications take place in court because “the
judge is present and can adequately address relevant problems; the jury is
physically present to witness the identification, rather than merely hearing
testimony about it; and cross-examination offers defendants an adequate
safeguard or remedy against suggestive examinations”); State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388, 577 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding in
criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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