State v. Williams

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.

Douglas Lamar Williams, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Ralph F. Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-498

Submitted November 1,2010 – Filed November
8, 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 Christina Catoe, of Columbia; and Solicitor
Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Douglas Lamar Williams appeals his
forgery conviction, arguing the trial court erred in admitting testimony
identifying him as the individual who presented a forged check.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) (holding the
admissibility of evidence is within the trial court's discretion and will not
be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, and noting an abuse of
discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling lacks evidentiary support or is
controlled by an error of law); State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 286, 540
S.E.2d 445, 447 (2000) ("An in-court identification of an accused is
inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a
very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."); Id. (holding
the trial court need only consider the second prong if the identification
process was suggestive); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127, 644
S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007)  (stating even assuming an identification procedure
was suggestive, the identification need not be excluded if under all of the
circumstances it was nevertheless reliable); Moore, 343 S.C. at 287, 540
S.E.2d at 447 (stating a two-step procedure is followed when evaluating an
out-of-court identification:  (1) whether the identification process unduly
suggestive; and (2) if so, "whether the out-of-court identification was
nevertheless so reliable that no substantial likelihood of misidentification
existed" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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