State v. Singleton

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.

Kadrin Rajun Singleton, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000306

Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-283
Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed July 12, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant
Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kadrin Rajun Singleton appeals his murder conviction and
sentence, arguing the circuit court erred (1) in refusing to give his requested jury
charge and (2) granting the State's motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.
79 (1986). We affirm 1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred in refusing to give Singleton's requested
jury charge: State v. Rye, 375 S.C. 119, 123, 651 S.E.2d 321, 323 (2007) ("A
[circuit] court's decision regarding jury charges will not be reversed where the
charges, as a whole, properly charged the law to be applied."); State v. Brandt, 393
S.C. 526, 549, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) ("The substance of the law is what must
be charged to the jury, not any particular verbiage."); State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107,
115, 674 S.E.2d 532, 536 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The simple fact that the [circuit] court
refused to use the '[gets] the drop on him' language does not render the charge
improper.").

2. As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the State's Batson motion:
Batson, 476 U.S. at 86 ("Purposeful racial discrimination in selection of the venire
violates a defendant's right to equal protection."); State v. Taylor, 399 S.C. 51, 57,
731 S.E.2d 596, 599 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Whether a Batson violation has occurred
must be determined by examining the totality of the facts and circumstances in the
record."); State v. Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 353, 714 S.E.2d 888, 897 (Ct. App. 2011)
("The [circuit] court's findings regarding purposeful discrimination are given great
deference and will not be set aside by this court unless clearly erroneous.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.

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