State v. Cottrell

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.

Luzenski Allen
Cottrell, Appellant.

Appeal From Marion County

 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-010

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
8, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Luzenski Allen Cottrell appeals his murder conviction and sentence, maintaining
the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior
arson.  Specifically, Cottrell argues the State misrepresented the evidence it
would present that would connect Cottrell to the arson and the subsequent
murder, and as a result of the misrepresentation, the trial court erred in
failing to grant Cottrell’s motion for a mistrial.  However, we find sufficient
evidence in the record supports the trial court’s findings that:  (1) clear and
convincing evidence was presented at trial to show that an arson occurred and
that Cottrell was involved in it; and (2) evidence of the arson provided motive
under Rule 404(b), SCRE, and was therefore admissible.  Accordingly, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 404(b),
SCRE (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.  It may,
however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common
scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent.”); State v.
Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (“If there is any evidence
to support the admission of the bad act evidence, the trial [court’s] ruling
will not be disturbed on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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