State v. Peters

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.

Donald Eugene Peters, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000492

Appeal From Beaufort County
Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-247
Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed May 13, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both 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: State v. Gilmore, 396 S.C. 72, 77, 719 S.E.2d 688, 690 (Ct. App.
2011) ("In criminal cases, we review the decisions of the trial court only for errors
of law. Therefore, in the context of a trial court's decision not to charge a
requested lesser-included offense, [this court] review[s] the trial court's decision de
novo." (internal quotation marks omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-600(D)(3)
(Supp. 2014) ("Assault and battery in the second degree is a lesser-included
offense of assault and battery in the first degree . . . ."); State v. Belcher, 385 S.C.
597, 611, 685 S.E.2d 802, 809 (2009) ("Errors, including erroneous jury
instructions, are subject to harmless error analysis."); State v. White, 361 S.C. 407,
412, 605 S.E.2d 540, 542 (2004) ("The law to be charged is determined by the
evidence presented at trial. A trial [court] must charge a lesser[-]included offense
if there is any evidence from which the jury could infer the defendant committed
the lesser rather than the greater offense. Conversely, a trial [court] does not err by
refusing to charge a lesser[-]included offense where there is no evidence tending to
show the defendant was guilty only of the lesser offense." (citations omitted));
Gilmore, 396 S.C. at 77, 719 S.E.2d at 691 ("[T]here must be evidence the
defendant committed [the lesser offense] instead of [the greater offense]."); State v.
Geiger, 370 S.C. 600, 608, 635 S.E.2d 669, 674 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The mere
contention that the jury might accept the State's evidence in part and reject it in part
is insufficient to satisfy the requirement that some evidence tend to show the
defendant was guilty only of the lesser offense.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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