State v. Harris

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.

Walter Lee Harris, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-181926

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-644
Submitted October 1, 2012 – Filed December 5, 2012

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior
Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Walter Lee Harris appeals his convictions of armed robbery,
burglary, and murder. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying his
motion for severance. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Harris's motion for severance:
State v. Spears, 393 S.C. 466, 475, 713 S.E.2d 324, 328 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A
motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court."
(quoting State v. Simmons, 352 S.C. 342, 350, 573 S.E.2d 856, 860 (Ct. App.
2002))); id. at 475, 713 S.E.2d at 328-29 ("Where the offenses charged in separate
indictments are of the same general nature involving connected transactions
closely related in kind, place and character, the trial [court] has the power, in [its]
discretion, to order the indictments tried together if the defendant's substantive
rights would not be prejudiced."); State v. Halcomb, 382 S.C. 432, 439, 676 S.E.2d
149, 152 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Criminal defendants who are jointly tried for murder
are not entitled to separate trials as a matter of right."); State v. Dennis, 337 S.C.
275, 281, 523 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1999) ("The general rule allowing joint trials
applies with equal force when a defendant's severance motion is based upon the
likelihood he and a codefendant will present mutually antagonistic defenses, i.e.,
accuse one another of committing the crime."); State v. Smith, 387 S.C. 619, 625-
26, 693 S.E.2d 415, 418-19 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding the loss of the right to have
the last closing argument is not a ground upon which to grant severance); State v.
Stuckey, 347 S.C. 484, 497, 556 S.E.2d 403, 409 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding the trial
court should grant a severance "only when there is a serious risk that a joint trial
would compromise a specific trial right of a co-defendant or prevent the jury from
making a reliable judgment about a co-defendant's guilt").

2. As to the remaining issues: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d
737, 741 (2005) (holding an issue is not preserved for appellate review when one
ground is raised to the trial court and another is raised on appeal).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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