State v. Jones

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.

Freddie Richard
Jones, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Ralph F. Cothran, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-297

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed June 1, 2010 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,  Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott,

and Assistant Attorney General Deborah
R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Freddie
Richard Jones appeals his convictions for second-degree burglary, grand
larceny, and violation of the South Carolina Education Lottery Act, for which
he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following controlling authorities:  S.C. Code. Ann. § 16-11-312(B)(2) (2003) ("A
person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a
building without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and . . . [t]he
burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more
convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both."); State v. Cheatham, 349
S.C. 101, 109-10, 561 S.E.2d 618, 623 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding the trial court
did not err in denying defendant's request to limit the State to proof of only
the "nighttime" element of first-degree burglary);  State v.
Simmons, 352 S.C. 342, 358, 573 S.E.2d 856, 865 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding
the trial court did not err in admitting defendant's prior burglary and
housebreaking convictions even when the defendant was willing to stipulate to
the "nighttime" element of first-degree burglary). 

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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