State v. Butler

CourtListener 10154616ScctappApr 25, 2012

Full text

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.

Shakeia Butler, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-252

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 25,
2012   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shakeia Butler appeals the circuit court's denial of her motion
for early parole eligibility under section 16-25-90 of the South Carolina Code
(Supp. 2011).  Butler argues she submitted credible evidence of a history of
criminal domestic violence suffered at the hands of a household member, as
required by section 16-25-90.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Blackwell-Selim,
392 S.C. 1, 3, 707 S.E.2d 426, 427-28 (2011) (stating the appellate court does
not reevaluate the facts based on its own view of the evidence but rather
determines whether any evidence supports the circuit court's ruling); id. at 3-4, 707 S.E.2d
at 428 (stating a history of criminal domestic violence under section
16-25-90 must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence); id. at 4,
707 S.E.2d at 428 ("[M]ere production of
evidence does not automatically result in earlier parole eligibility; instead,
the defendant must persuade the [circuit court] by presenting proof which leads
the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more
probable than its nonexistence.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.