State v. May

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.

Tykeem Kalani May, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001827

Appeal from Orangeburg County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-138
Submitted January 1, 2017 – Filed April 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986) ("[T]he State's privilege to
strike individual jurors through peremptory challenges . . . is subject to the
commands of the Equal Protection Clause."); State v. Cochran, 369 S.C. 308, 312,
631 S.E.2d 294, 297 (Ct. App. 2006) ("In the typical appeal from the granting or
denial of a Batson motion, the appellate courts give deference to the findings of the
trial court and apply a clearly erroneous standard."); State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173,
176, 460 S.E.2d 368, 370 (1995) ("In a Batson hearing, the [State] must present a
racially neutral explanation for the challenges." (footnote omitted)); Purkett v.
Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995) ("Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the
[State]'s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." (quoting
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360 (1991) (plurality opinion))); Cochran,
369 S.C. at 318, 631 S.E.2d at 300 ("The employment status of a prospective juror
is a race-neutral reason for using a peremptory challenge."); Kelley, 319 S.C. at
176, 460 S.E.2d at 370 ("The defendant has the burden to prove the [State]'s
allegedly neutral reasons are pretext."); Cochran, 369 S.C. at 315, 631 S.E.2d at
298 ("This burden is generally established by showing similarly situated members
of another race were seated on the jury."); State v. Haigler, 334 S.C. 623, 629, 515
S.E.2d 88, 91 (1999) ("Whether a party's proffered reason for exercising a
peremptory strike is discriminatory must be determined by examining the totality
of the facts and circumstances in the record."); id. at 630, 515 S.E.2d at 91 ("The
composition of the jury panel is a factor that may be considered when determining
whether a party engaged in purposeful discrimination."); Kelley, 319 S.C. at 177,
460 S.E.2d at 370 (finding the State provided a racially neutral explanation for why
it did not strike a juror with similar characteristics to one previously stricken).

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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