State v. Washington

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.

Travis
Washington, Appellant.

Appeal From Bamberg County

Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-364

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 14,
2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold
M. Coombs, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Benjamin R. Moore, of Aiken, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   Travis
Washington was convicted of simple assault and battery, possession with intent
to distribute marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana
within proximity of a school.  On appeal, Washington argues (1) the trial judge's
remarks during voir dire and his interaction with witnesses showed bias against Washington and prejudiced him and (2) the
trial judge erred in allowing the State's comment about "standing up"
for the victim by asking the jury to find him guilty of assault and battery of
a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN) during its closing argument.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1.  As to whether the
trial judge's remarks during voir dire and his interactions with witnesses showed
bias against Washington and prejudiced him: State v. Charron, 351 S.C. 319, 328, 569 S.E.2d 388, 393 (Ct. App. 2002)
(holding in order to preserve an issue of the trial judge's partiality for
appellate review, an objection must be lodged when the facts first become
known) (quoting Butler v. Sea Pines
Plantation Co., 282 S.C. 113, 122-23, 317 S.E.2d 464, 470 (Ct. App. 1984)
("Generally, where bias and prejudice of a trial judge is claimed, the
issue must be raised when the facts first become known.")).

2. As to whether the trial judge erred in allowing the
State's comment about "standing up" for the victim during its closing
argument, we note Washington was not convicted of ABHAN: Brown v. State, 383 S.C. 506, 516, 680 S.E.2d 909, 915 (2009) ("Improper comments do
not automatically require reversal if they are not prejudicial to the defendant, and the appellant has the burden of
proving he did not receive a fair trial because of the alleged improper
argument.") (quotation marks and citation omitted); State v.
Durden, 264 S.C. 86, 91, 212 S.E.2d 587, 590 (1975) ("[T]he trial
judge is allowed a wide discretion in dealing with the range and propriety of
argument of the solicitor to the jury, and ordinarily his rulings on such
matters will not be disturbed.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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