State v. Weathersbee

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.

Kurtino Weathersbee, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002171

Appeal From Richland County
Maité D. Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-239
Submitted January 1, 2016 – Filed June 1, 2016

AFFIRMED

David Edward Belding, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, and Solicitor
Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 29(b), SCRCrimP ("A motion for a new trial based on after-
discovered evidence must be made within one (1) year after the date of actual
discovery of the evidence by the defendant or after the date when the evidence
could have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence."); State v.
Harris, 391 S.C. 539, 545, 706 S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 2011) ("'The granting of
a new trial because of after-discovered evidence is not favored,' and this court will
affirm the [circuit] court's denial of such a motion unless the [circuit] court abused
its discretion." (quoting State v. Irvin, 270 S.C. 539, 545, 243 S.E.2d 195, 197-98
(1978))); id. ("In order to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of after-
discovered evidence, the movant must show the evidence (1) is such as will
probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) has been discovered since
the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due
diligence; (4) is material to the issue; and (5) is not merely cumulative or
impeaching.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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