State v. Salisbury

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.

George
Salisbury, Appellant.

Appeal From Berkeley County

Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-214

Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed March 28,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth
Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  George
Salisbury appeals his convictions for assault on a correctional officer, taking
of a hostage by an inmate, and first degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing
the trial court erred in admitting a letter in which Salisbury explains how the
assault will take place.  Salisbury argues the handwriting in the letter was
not authenticated, irrelevant, and inadmissible as Lyle[1] evidence.  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Anderson, 386 S.C. 120, 126, 687 S.E.2d 35, 38 (2009) ("The admission of
evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed
absent an abuse of discretion.  An abuse of discretion occurs when the
conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are
controlled by an error of law." (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).[3]

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803
(1923).

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

[3] In his brief, Salisbury also makes the statement that
the letter "interjected improper character evidence into [Salisbury's]
trial."  Salisbury makes no argument nor does he cite any law in support
of this conclusory statement.  Accordingly, this argument has been abandoned.  See State v. Tyndall, 336 S.C. 8, 16, 518 S.E.2d 278, 282 (Ct. App. 1999)
("Conclusory arguments constitute an abandonment of the issue on
appeal.").