State v. Waiters

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.

James Waiters,
Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-296

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   

AFFIRMED

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Waiters, Jr., appeals his
convictions for two counts of armed robbery and possession of a firearm,
arguing the trial court erred in denying his new trial motion.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 383, 401 S.E.2d 146, 150
(1991) (abolishing the rule prohibiting inconsistent verdicts in criminal cases
and finding a defendant suffers no prejudice from inconsistent verdicts in a
criminal case); State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111, 123, 481 S.E.2d 118, 124
(1997) (finding the appeal of the denial of a new trial motion based on
inconsistent verdicts lacked merit because the rule prohibiting inconsistent
verdicts was abolished).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS,
JJ., concur.

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