State v. Ocasio

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.

Bernaldino Ocasio, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-180886

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-039
Submitted January 2, 2013 – Filed January 23, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Bernaldino Ocasio appeals his conviction of trafficking in
oxycodone, arguing the trial court erred in denying his Batson motion and
admitting his mug shots at trial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities:

1. As to the Batson motion: State v. Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 353, 714 S.E.2d 888,
897 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The trial court's findings regarding purposeful
discrimination are given great deference and will not be set aside by this court
unless clearly erroneous."); id. at 352-53, 714 S.E.2d at 897 ("After a party objects
to a jury strike, the proponent of the strike must offer a facially race-neutral
explanation. Once the proponent states a reason that is race-neutral, the burden is
on the party challenging the strike to show the explanation is mere pretext, either
by showing similarly situated members of another race were seated on the jury or
that the reason given for the strike is so fundamentally implausible as to constitute
mere pretext despite a lack of disparate treatment."); State v. Taylor, 399 S.C. 51,
57, 731 S.E.2d 596, 599 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Whether a Batson violation has
occurred must be determined by examining the totality of the facts and
circumstances in the record.").

2. As to the admittance of the mug shots: State v. Garner, 389 S.C. 61, 65, 697
S.E.2d 615, 617 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Evidentiary rulings are within the sound
discretion of the trial court, and such rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse
of discretion or the commission of legal error that prejudices the defendant."); State
v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84, 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a
'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the state has a demonstrable
need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not
suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not
introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication."); State v.
Denson, 269 S.C. 407, 412, 237 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1977) (finding the State showed
a demonstrable need to introduce mug shots when the defendant's absence from
trial made an in-court identification impossible); id. at 412-13, 237 S.E.2d at 764
(holding the defendant's mug shots were admissible when the words "Richland
County" were present on one of the mug shots and the mug shots depicted taped-
over placards).

AFFIRMED.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.