State v. Calvin

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.

Virgil Lee
Calvin, Appellant.

Appeal From Clarendon County

 Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-463

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October
25, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, 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 Mary S. Williams, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:   Virgil Lee Calvin was convicted of being a peeping tom
and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.  On appeal, Calvin argues the trial
court erred in (1) finding the State's peremptory strikes of two
African-American males from the jury were proper and (2) admitting Calvin's
arrest warrant into evidence as the victim's prior consistent statement.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether the
trial court erred in finding the State's peremptory strike of Juror One was proper: State v.
Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 615, 545 S.E.2d 805, 810 (2001) (holding the appellate court applies the deferential
clearly erroneous standard of review to the trial court's findings with respect
to a Batson[2] challenge of a juror strike); State v. Martinez, 294 S.C. 72, 73,
362 S.E.2d 641, 642 (1987) (finding a possible criminal record is a racially
neutral reason for a juror strike); State v. Casey, 325 S.C. 447, 453 n.2, 481 S.E.2d 169,
172 n.2 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding a prior criminal conviction is a racially
neutral reason to strike).  We
decline to reach the issue of whether the trial court erred in finding the
peremptory strike of Juror Two was proper. See State v. Bryant,
372 S.C. 305, 315-16, 642 S.E.2d 582, 588 (2007) (finding when an appellant
concedes an issue at trial, it cannot be raised on appeal); see also State v. Gill, 327
S.C. 253, 254, 489 S.E.2d 478, 478 (1997) (finding a Batson issue is not
properly preserved for review when it was not raised to or ruled upon by the
trial court). 

2.  As to whether the
trial court erred in admitting the victim's prior consistent statement:  State v. Fulton, 333 S.C. 359, 363-64,
509 S.E.2d 819, 821 (Ct. App. 1998) ("To warrant reversal, an appellant must show not
only an alleged error, but resulting prejudice."); State v. Jarrell, 350 S.C. 90, 100-01, 564 S.E.2d 362, 368 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding the
trial court erred in admitting a statement when no allegation of recent fabrication or
improper influence or motive was made, but the error was harmless because the
testimony was cumulative and substantially identical to other admitted
evidence).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

[2] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).