State v. Seabrook

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.

Decoven
Fletcher Seabrook, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-537

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 16, 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, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Decoven Fletcher Seabrook appeals his conviction of armed robbery, arguing the trial court
erred in considering his decision to exercise his right to a jury trial in
sentencing and in denying his motion for a continuance.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred in sentencing: Brooks v. State, 325 S.C. 269, 271, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997) ("A trial judge is
allowed broad discretion in sentencing within the statutory limits."); State
v. Conally, 227 S.C. 507, 510, 88 S.E.2d 591, 592 (1955) (holding an
appellate court "has no jurisdiction to disturb, because of alleged
excessiveness, a sentence which is within the limits prescribed by statute,
unless: (a) the statute itself violates the constitutional injunction . . .
against cruel and unusual punishment, or (b) the sentence is the result of
partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive.").

2. As
to whether the trial court erred in denying
Seabrook's motion for a continuance: State v. Colden, 372 S.C.
428, 435, 641 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 2007) (finding "[t]he granting of
a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court
and will not be disturbed [on appeal] absent a clear showing of an abuse of
discretion"); id. at 435, 641 S.E.2d at 917 (finding "[a]n
abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack
evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law"). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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