State v. Housey

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.

Dwayne Housey, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-026

Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed January
25, 2011

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wlilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John
W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin
Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dwayne Housey was convicted of trafficking cocaine in
an amount of more than one hundred grams and was sentenced to twenty-five years'
imprisonment.  On appeal, Housey argues the trial court erred in allowing
excessive conspiracy testimony into evidence to support the trafficking charge
because the testimony was prejudicial character evidence that had no probative
value.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Mouzon, 321 S.C. 27, 32, 467 S.E.2d 122, 125 (Ct. App.
1995) ("Conspiracy is a combination or agreement between two or more
persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or unlawful object, or
achieving by criminal or unlawful means an object that is neither criminal nor
unlawful.  It may be proven by the specific overt acts done in furtherance of
the conspiracy,
but the gravamen of the offense of conspiracy is the agreement, combination, or mutual understanding."
(citations omitted)); State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d
864, 868 (1993) ("The State is entitled to prove the whole history of
the conspiracy, from its commencement to its conclusion, as well as overt acts
done in furtherance of the conspiracy since from those overt acts, an inference
may be drawn as to the existence and object of the conspiracy." (citation and
quotation marks omitted)); State v. Harris, 342 S.C. 191, 202, 535
S.E.2d 652, 657 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding evidence does not constitute "other
crimes, wrongs or acts" under Rule 404(b), SCRE "if [the evidence] arose
out of the same . . . series of transactions as the charged offense . . . [and]
constituted predicate evidence necessary to provide the context to the drug
distribution scheme that took place within the charged time frame."
(citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW,
C.J., SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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