State v. Matheny

CourtListener 10148892ScctappMar 11, 2015

Full text

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.

Randall Dean Matheny, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001924

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-130
Submitted January 1, 2015 – Filed March 11, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina Catoe Bigelow, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Gilmore, 396 S.C. 72, 77, 719 S.E.2d 688, 690 (Ct. App. 2011)
("[I]n the context of a trial court's decision not to charge a requested lesser-
included offense, we review the trial court's decision de novo."); Sheppard v. State,
357 S.C. 646, 665, 594 S.E.2d 462, 472 (2004) ("In general, the trial court is
required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina."); State v.
Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262, 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) ("The law to be charged to the
jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial."); State v. Geiger, 370 S.C.
600, 607, 635 S.E.2d 669, 673 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The trial court should refuse to
charge the lesser[-]included offense when there has been no evidence tending to
show the defendant may have committed solely the lesser offense."); State v.
Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to
be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial [court]."); State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 355, 751 S.E.2d 645, 661
(2013) ("[A] party may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal . . . .").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.