State v. Styles

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.

Atraus Dorrell Styles, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000798

Appeal From Spartanburg County
R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-236
Submitted June 1, 2019 – Filed June 26, 2019

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The jury convicted Styles of misconduct in office. The trial
court sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. On appeal, Styles argues the trial
court erred by failing to declare a mistrial when the State impermissibly
commented on his failure to testify. When viewed in the context of the closing
argument, the State's statement did not improperly comment on Styles's decision to
not testify. See State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443, 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App.
2006) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of
the trial [court] and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion
amounting to an error of law."); State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 369, 675 S.E.2d 764,
769 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[I]t is impermissible for the State to comment directly or
indirectly upon a defendant's failure to testify at trial." (alteration in original)
(quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 319, 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (Ct. App.
2003))); State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117, 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009)
("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant
must show both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial.").
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial.

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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