State v. Grier

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

n The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Samuel Jamar
Grier, Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-145  

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 11,
2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Senior and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Samuel
Jamar Grier appeals his convictions for possession with the intent to
distribute cocaine base and failure to stop for a blue light, arguing the trial
court erred in denying his Batson[1] motion after the State struck all three African-American males called.  We
affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v.
Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 123, 470 S.E.2d 366, 371 (1996) ("[T]he trial
court's findings regarding purposeful discrimination are entitled to great
deference and are to be set aside only if clearly erroneous."); id. at 124, 470 S.E.2d at 372 ("Once a racially neutral explanation is given,
the party challenging the strikes must show the explanation is mere pretext for
racial discrimination."). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

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