State v. Distasio

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.

Dean Guisseppi Distasio, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002130

Appeal From York County
R. Scott Sprouse, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-015
Submitted November 1, 2017 – Filed January 10, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523, 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App.
2012) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of
the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion
resulting in prejudice."); State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 189, 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct.
App. 2010) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual
conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Irick, 344 S.C.
460, 464, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001))); id. at 190, 705 S.E.2d at 447 ("[R]eversals
of refusal of continuance are about as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth." (alteration
by court) (quoting State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 409, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859
(1957))); Meggett, 398 S.C. at 524, 728 S.E.2d at 496 ("A mistrial should be
granted only when absolutely necessary and a defendant must show both error and
resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial." (quoting State v. Bantan, 387 S.C.
412, 417, 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010))).

AFFIRMED. 1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HILL, JJ., concur.

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