State v. Tremayne Washington

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.

Tremayne R. Washington, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-162

Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed
February 24, 2010   

AFFIRMED

William L. Runyon, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald
J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General Walter Edgar Salter, III, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tremayne R. Washington was convicted of murder and was
sentenced to thirty years imprisonment.  He appeals asserting the trial court
erred in failing to:  (1) grant a mistrial, (2) direct a verdict in his favor,
and (3) "require the State to elect a theory of the case based on the
indictments."  Washington also asserts error in the trial court's jury
charge on "the hand of one is the hand of all" and its charge concerning
malice.  We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities:  State v.
Council, 335 S.C. 1, 12-13, 515
S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) (holding the decision to grant or deny a mistrial is
within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose ruling will not be
overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion; a mistrial should not be
granted unless absolutely necessary); State v. Ward, 374 S.C. 606,
612-13, 649 S.E.2d 145, 148 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding, in appeal from Washington's
co-defendant Ward who was tried with Washington, isolated gang references that
were not completely gratuitous did not warrant a mistrial); State v. Padgett,
354 S.C. 268, 270-271, 580 S.E.2d 159, 161 (Ct. App. 2003) (on appeal from the
denial of a directed verdict, an appellate court must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State; if there is any direct evidence or any
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of
the accused, the appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to
the jury); Ward, 374 S.C. at 615, 649 S.E.2d at 150 (noting the
following evidence presented to support the trial court's denial of directed
verdict:  that Washington and Ward were involved in the fight with Dunmeyer;
that as Dunmeyer fled, Washington threatened to kill someone that night; and
that moments after that threat, Ward and Washington got into a truck from which
gunfire erupted towards the vehicle in which Dunmeyer rode); State v.
Serrette, 375 S.C. 650, 652, 654 S.E.2d 554, 555 (Ct. App. 2007) (stating
the burden is on the appellant to provide an appellate court with an adequate
record for review); Rule 210(h), SCACR (stating an appellate court need not
consider any fact which does not appear in the record); State v. Brown,
362 S.C. 258, 261-62, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting the law to be
charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial); Ward,
374 S.C. at 614, 649 S.E.2d at 149 (finding, after considering the evidence of
Washington and Ward's actions, no error in the trial court’s charge to the jury
that "the hand of one is the hand of all" as the evidence at trial
supported the theory that Ward and Washington joined together to accomplish an
illegal purpose, and therefore it was appropriate for the trial court to
instruct the jury that if it found such a joint endeavor existed, each
defendant was liable criminally for everything done by his confederate
incidental to the execution of that endeavor); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C.
1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) (noting an issue raised on appeal
but not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by
the appellate court); Mulherin-Howell v. Cobb, 362 S.C. 588, 600, 608
S.E.2d 587, 593-94 (Ct. App. 2005) (noting when an appellant fails to cite any
supporting authority for his position and fails to provide any argument or makes
conclusory arguments, the appellant abandons the issue on appeal); First
Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding
an issue is abandoned where the appellant fails to provide argument or
supporting authority); Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (providing that an appellant's
brief "shall be divided into as many parts as there are issues to be argued,"
and "[a]t the head of each part, the particular issue to be addressed
shall be set forth in distinctive type, followed by discussion and citations of
authority").[1]

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS,
and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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