State v. Littles

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT
BE CITED OR RELIED ON 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.

Edward Littles       
Appellant.

Appeal From Marlboro County

John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-242

Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed April
15, 2004

AFFIRMED

Edward Littles, Jr., pro se 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, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Darlington,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Littles was
indicted for murder.  The case was called for trial on February 12, 2002.  After
jury selection, the judge adjourned court for the day.  Littles was allowed
to stay on bond, but the court informed Littles that failure to appear at the
trial would not delay the trial from moving forward.  On February 13, 2002,
Littles did not return to court.  On February 14, 2002, Littles returned for
the second day of trial.  The jury convicted him of murder.  The judge sentenced
Littles to 40 years imprisonment.  This appeal follows.

FACTS

The victim, Harold
Richard Williams, owned a small store and poolroom in Bennettsville, South Carolina. 
On August 11, 1999, the victim’s wife, Kathy Moody, went to the store to see
the victim and pick up supplies for a planned outing scheduled for the following
day.  When Ms. Moody arrived, a group of men were at the store, including Edward
Littles, Jr.  Some members of the group were playing pool; Mr. Littles was observing
them play. 

At some point later,
Littles, Maurice McNeil and a man named Shawn (whose last name was unknown)
were outside in the middle of the street. They were involved in an altercation. 
Littles approached McNeil and Shawn as they were crossing the street.  Littles
called to McNeil and stated “All I asked you to do is buy me a beer.” Shawn
returned to where Littles and McNeil were talking and informed Littles that
he was trying to get home and did not want any trouble. Littles pointed his
gun at Shawn and told him that he was not speaking to him.  Shawn ran away,
while McNeil stood there.  Eventually, Littles and McNeil returned to the inside
of the store so that McNeil could return a paged call. 

Once McNeil and Littles were
inside the store, McNeil used the telephone. When McNeil picked up the telephone
and started dialing, Littles came around to where the phone was and pulled
McNeil’s hand off the telephone and pulled McNeil away from the phone.  At that
point, McNeil and Littles began fighting.  Williams pulled out a gun and requested
Littles leave.  Littles got “crazy, loud” and said that he was not afraid of
the gun.  Williams picked up his gun and struck Littles on the forehead and
pushed him out the door.  As Williams was pushing Littles out the door
the clip fell from Williams’ gun. 

Littles returned and threatened
to shoot Moody, then shot Williams.  After shooting Williams, Littles
went outside.  After Littles left, there were several shots outside.  Littles
returned to the store and fired several shots into Williams, who was on the
floor. Williams was pronounced dead at the scene.   

The case was called for trial
on February 12, 2002. Prior to the beginning of the trial, the judge allowed
Littles to remain on bond.  However, the judge admonished Littles that the trial
would proceed whether Littles was present.  Littles did not show for the second
day of trial and the trial proceeded and testimony was completed.  Littles returned
before closing arguments on the last day of trial.  He was convicted of murder
and sentenced to forty (40) years.  Littles appeals.

ISSUES

1.                
Did the trial court err in proceeding with the trial in abstentia?

2.                
Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s motion for directed verdict on
the grounds of lack of evidence?

LAW/ANALYSIS

1. Trial In Abstentia

Littles asserts the trial court erred in trying
him in absentia. We disagree. 

Rule 16 of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides: 

Except in cases wherein capital
punishment is a permissible sentence, a person indicted for misdemeanors and/or
felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and may be tried in his
absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of
his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed
in his absence upon a failure to attend the court.  

Rule 16, SCRCrimP. 

“A trial judge must determine a criminal defendant
voluntarily waived his right to be present at trial in order to try the case
in absentia.”  See Rule 16, SCRCrimP; State v. Castineira,
341 S.C. 619, 623, 535 S.E.2d 449, 451 (Ct.App. 2000)  “The judge must make
findings of fact on the record that the defendant (1) received notice of his
right to be present; and (2) was warned he would be tried in his absence should
he fail to attend.” Castineira, 341 S.C. at 623, 535 S.E.2d 451; State
v. Jackson, 288 S.C. 94, 96, 341 S.E.2d 375 (1986).

The record establishes the trial judge made the
requisite inquiries and findings; and counsel stipulated that Littles received
the proper notice, not only from the court, but also from counsel himself. Therefore,
this issue is without merit.

2.       Directed Verdict Motion

Although Littles raises the denial of the directed
verdict motion in his statement of the issues on appeal, he failed to argue
it in his brief. “An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is deemed
abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.”  Fields v.
Melrose Ltd. Partnership, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct.App.
1993).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s
ruling is

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.