State v. Johnson

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.

Donald L.
Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal From Union County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-373

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 21,
2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie Thames, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Donald
L. Johnson appeals his convictions for distribution of crack cocaine and
distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a school, arguing the trial
court erred in denying his motion for a continuance and request to charge the
jury on entrapment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1.  As to the motion for a
continuance:  State v. McMillian, 349 S.C. 17, 21, 561 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2002) (stating the
denial of a motion for a continuance will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse
of discretion and reversals of refusals of continuances are about as "rare
as the proverbial hens' teeth"); State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 455,
459, 469 S.E.2d 49, 51-52 (1996) ("Where there is no showing that any
other evidence on behalf of the appellant could have been produced, or that any
other points could have been raised had more time been granted for the purpose
of preparing the case for trial, the denial of a motion for continuance is not
an abuse of discretion."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 457,
692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding defendant waived his
constitutional right to be present at trial after he was notified of his right
to attend and instructed his failure to appear would result in being tried in
his absence, as well as noting defendant's bond form sufficiently warned him of
being tried in his absence for failing to appear).

2.  As to the
jury charge:  State v. Johnson, 295 S.C. 215, 217, 367 S.E.2d 700, 701
(1988) ("One pleading entrapment has the burden of showing that he was
induced, tricked or incited to commit a crime, which he would not otherwise
have committed.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS,
JJ., concur. 

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