State v. Garrett

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.

Robert L. Garrett, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

 Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-466

Submitted September 14, 2004 – Filed September 15, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, Office of Appellate
Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General
John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia;   and
Solicitor Cecil Kelley Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Garrett appeals his convictions
for carjacking, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of assault and battery
of a high and aggravated nature, possession of a weapon, and conspiracy.  Specifically,
Garrett argues the trial court erred when it refused “to grant a severance or
a mistrial when it allowed the use of a confession by a non-testifying co-defendant
to implicate appellant.”  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following
authorities:

As to Garrett’s contention that the trial court
erred in admitting his co-defendant’s statement:  see State v. Garrett,
350 S.C. 613, 620-621, 567 S.E.2d 523, 526-527 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding in a
prior ruling in the same case, that because the statement was redacted to omit
mention of Garrett by name and the judge issued a curative instruction, the
statement did not violate the confrontation clause);  see also
B.C. Huggins v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 252 S.C. 353, 357, 166 S.E.2d
297, 299 (1969) (“It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a decision of
this court on a former appeal is the law of the case.”);  Barth v. Barth,
293 S.C. 305, 308, 360 S.E.2d 309, 310 (1987) (“Ordinarily, the disposition
of a case in the Court of Appeals when certiorari is not applied for nor granted
becomes the law of the case.”).

AFFIRMED. [1]

ANDERSON, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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