Bell v. State

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

John James Bell, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002196

Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-069
Submitted December 1, 2016 – Filed February 8, 2017

AFFIRMED

Paul Andrew Anderson, of Anderson & Anderson, LLP,
of Aiken, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Lynch, 375 S.C. 628, 632, 654 S.E.2d 292, 294 (Ct. App. 2007)
("In criminal cases, this [c]ourt reviews errors of law only."); id. ("An appellate
court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly
erroneous."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-28-90(B) (2014) ("The court shall order DNA
testing of the applicant's DNA and the physical evidence or biological material
upon a finding that the applicant has established each of the following factors by a
preponderance of the evidence: . . . (4) the DNA results of the physical evidence or
biological material sought to be tested would be material to the issue of the
applicant's identity as the perpetrator of, or accomplice to, the offense
notwithstanding the fact that the applicant may have pled guilty or nolo contendere
or made or is alleged to have made an incriminating statement or admission as to
identity; (5) if the requested DNA testing produces exculpatory results, the testing
will constitute new evidence that will probably change the result of the applicant's
conviction or adjudication if a new trial is granted and is not merely cumulative or
impeaching; (6) the physical evidence or biological material sought to be tested
was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or if the physical evidence or
biological material sought to be tested was previously subjected to DNA testing,
the requested DNA test would provide a substantially more probative result . . . .").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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