Wooten v. State

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

Danny Wooten, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Pickens County

Larry R. Patterson, Trial Judge

 Edward W. Miller, Post-Conviction Relief
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-342

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 18,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Tricia A. Blanchette, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from
the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).[1]

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that
petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct
appeal, we grant certiorari on petitioner’s Question I and proceed with a
review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C.
290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).  We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari
as to petitioner’s Questions II and III. 

Petitioner's conviction and sentence are affirmed 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)
("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court
and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v.
Council, 335 S.C. 1, 12-13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) ("The decision
to grant or deny a motion for a mistrial is a matter within a trial court's
sound discretion, and such a decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an
abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Gault,
375 S.C. 570, 574, 654 S.E.2d 98, 100 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[F]or an
error of law to warrant reversal based on admission or exclusion of evidence, the appellant must prove both the error
of the ruling and the resulting prejudice, i.e., that
there is a reasonable probability the verdict was influenced by the challenged
evidence or the lack thereof."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378,
580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A trial judge's decision regarding
the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be
reversed only in exceptional circumstances."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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