State v. Abney

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.

Horace Abney,
Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-414

Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed
September 20, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, 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, of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M.
Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Horace
Abney, Jr. appeals his conviction for trafficking cocaine and thirty-year
sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial
and motion to dismiss pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers[1] (IAD).  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1.  As
to whether the trial court erred in denying Abney's new trial motion: State v. Garrett, 350 S.C. 613,
619, 567 S.E.2d 523, 526 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating generally, the grant or
refusal of a new trial is within the trial court's discretion and will not be
disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion); State v.
Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232, 355 S.E.2d 861, 862 (1987) (finding an error
in trying a defendant in his absence is subject to a harmless error analysis); see
also State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 626, 545 S.E.2d 805, 816 (2001)
(finding a defendant's absence during a Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368
(1964), hearing, if error, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence
of guilt and the defendant's inability to contribute evidence that was not
presented during his trial).

2.  As
to whether the trial court erred in denying Abney's motion to dismiss pursuant
to the IAD:  Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 725 (1985) ("The language of the
[IAD] therefore makes clear that the phrase 'untried indictment, information or
complaint' in Art. III refers to criminal charges pending against a
prisoner.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

[1] S.C. Code Ann. § 17-11-10 (2003).

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