State v. Huggins

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.

Jamar Antonio Huggins, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001488

Appeal From Horry County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-247
Submitted May 1, 2019 – Filed July 3, 2019

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of
Conway, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166, 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) ("The
decision whether to grant a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the
[circuit] court, and [an appellate court] will not disturb the [circuit] court's decision
absent an abuse of discretion."); id. at 167, 672 S.E.2d at 565 ("The deferential
standard of review constrains [an appellate court] to affirm the [circuit] court if
reasonably supported by the evidence."); id. ("On review, [an appellate court] may
not make [its] own findings of fact."); State v. Harris, 391 S.C. 539, 545, 706
S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In order to warrant the granting of a new trial on
the ground of after-discovered evidence, the movant must show the evidence (1) is
such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) has been
discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before the trial by the
exercise of due diligence; (4) is material to the issue; and (5) is not merely
cumulative or impeaching.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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