State v. Chandler

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.

William Tiay Chandler, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000455

Appeal From Aiken County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-036
Submitted January 1, 2021 – Filed February 10, 2021

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond,
Jr., of Aiken, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: William Tiay Chandler appeals his convictions for two counts of
first-degree burglary and two counts of possession of a weapon during the
commission of a violent crime and aggregate sentence of twenty-one years'
imprisonment. On appeal, Chandler argues the trial court erred in allowing the
State to cross-examine him about a specific conviction for which Chandler was on
probation. Because there is overwhelming evidence of Chandler's guilt, including
Chandler's admission he participated in the robberies by driving the getaway
vehicle and firing a weapon at one of the robbery locations, we affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Haselden, 353 S.C.
190, 196, 577 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2003) (providing the admission of improper
evidence is subject to a harmless error analysis); State v. McLeod, 362 S.C. 73,
84-85, 606 S.E.2d 215, 221 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding that even if the trial court
erred in admitting testimony, the error would be harmless given the overwhelming
evidence against the defendant); State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447, 710 S.E.2d 55,
60 (2011) ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence
such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that
does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless."); State v. Price, 368
S.C. 494, 499, 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("Where a review of the entire record
establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should
not be reversed.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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