State v, Grant

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.

Clift Grant,
III, Appellant.

Appeal From Berkeley County

Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-401

Submitted September 1, 2010 –Filed
September 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, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clift
Grant, III appeals his sentence for voluntary manslaughter, arguing the trial
court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities: State
v. Smith, 276 S.C. 494, 498, 280
S.E.2d 200, 202 (1981) (holding the trial court's ruling on a motion for
reconsideration will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion);  State v. Follin, 352 S.C. 235, 257, 573 S.E.2d 812, 824
(Ct. App. 2002) ("[W]hen the record clearly reflects an appropriate basis
for a disparate sentence, the sentencing judge may impose a different sentence
on a co-defendant in a criminal trial."); Brooks v. State, 325 S.C.
269, 271-72, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997) ("A trial judge is allowed broad
discretion in sentencing within statutory limits. A sentence is not excessive
if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an
allegation of prejudice against a defendant." (citations omitted)); S.C.
Code Ann. § 16-3-50 (2003) ("A person convicted of manslaughter, or the
unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be
imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.").   

AFFIRMED.[1]

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

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