State v. Shameen Coker

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.

Shameen Coker, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001779

Appeal From Beaufort County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-418
Submitted October 1, 2017 – Filed November 8, 2017

AFFIRMED

Tricia A. Blanchette, of Law Office of Tricia A.
Blanchette, LLC, of Leesville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, and J. Robert
Bolchoz, of Robert Bolchoz, LLC, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 29(b), SCRCrimP ("A motion for a new trial based on after-
discovered evidence must be made within one (1) year after the date of actual
discovery of the evidence by the defendant or after the date when the evidence
could have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence."); State v.
Irvin, 270 S.C. 539, 545, 243 S.E.2d 195, 197-98 (1978) ("The granting of a new
trial because of after-discovered evidence is not favored, and this [c]ourt will
[affirm] the [trial] court's denial of such a motion unless there appears an abuse of
discretion."); State v. Harris, 391 S.C. 539, 545, 706 S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App.
2011) ("The credibility of newly-discovered evidence is for the trial court to
determine."); State v. Spann, 334 S.C. 618, 619-20, 513 S.E.2d 98, 99 (1999) ("In
order to prevail in this new trial motion, appellant must show the after-discovered
evidence: (1) is such that it would probably change the result if a new trial were
granted; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not in the exercise of due
diligence have been discovered prior to the trial; (4) is material; and (5) is not
merely cumulative or impeaching."); State v. Porter, 269 S.C. 618, 621, 239
S.E.2d 641, 643 (1977) ("Recantation of testimony ordinarily is unreliable and
should be subjected to the closest scrutiny when offered as ground for a new trial."
(quoting State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 261, 89 S.E.2d 701, 709 (1955)));
Johnson v. Catoe, 345 S.C. 389, 400, 548 S.E.2d 587, 592-93 (2001) (holding a
trial result would probably not change after making a determination that a witness's
testimony was not credible because it was inconsistent).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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