State v. Dickson

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.

Daniel Dickson, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-348

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 6,
2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle Cantey Durant,
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 Norman Mark Rapoport,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   Daniel
Dickson appeals his conviction for attempted armed robbery and kidnapping.  On
appeal, Dickson argues the trial court erred in finding the State's reason for
striking the juror because he was a Lutheran minister was not pretextual even
though he was of the same age, gender, and race as Dickson.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Edwards, 384 S.C. 504, 510, 682 S.E.2d 820, 823 (2009) ("Employment
is a well-understood and recognized consideration in the exercise of peremptory
challenges."); McCrea v. Gheraibeh, 380 S.C. 183, 187 n.2, 669
S.E.2d 333, 335 n.2 (2008) (finding a strike will be deemed racially neutral
unless there is an inherent discriminatory intent in the explanation); State v. Evins, 373 S.C. 404, 415, 645 S.E.2d 904, 909 (2007) ("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.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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