State v. Green

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Kendall Green, Appellant.

Appeal From Marlboro County

 Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-592

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
17, 2008

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant
Attorney General Melody J. Brown, of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr.,
of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kendall
Green was indicted for and convicted of murder, kidnapping, and grand larceny. 
Green appeals, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to order the removal
of his restraints during his trial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the
following authorities:  Deck
v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622,
629 (2005) (holding the use of physical restraints visible to
the jury are prohibited absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of
its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a
particular trial);  State v. Tucker, 320 S.C. 206, 209, 464 S.E.2d 105, 107
(1995) (providing that the trial judge is to balance the
prejudicial effect of shackling with the considerations of courtroom decorum
and security; whether a defendant is restrained during trial is within the
trial judge’s discretion; and the trial judge is the best equipped to decide the
extent to which security measures should be adopted to prevent disruption of
the trial, harm to those in the courtroom, escape of the accused, and
prevention of other crimes);  State
v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 500, 629
S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) (holding an issue cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be
preserved for appellate review);  State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 296, 509 S.E.2d 476, 483 (1998) (holding
where appellant failed to object to jury charge, issue was not preserved for
consideration on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

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

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