State v. Massey

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.

Allen Wesley Massey, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001934

Appeal From Lancaster County
D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-436
Submitted October 1, 2017 – Filed November 22, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defenders John Harrison Strom and Laura
Ruth Baer, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Randy E. Newman, Jr., of
Lancaster, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-440(C) (2015) ("A person who is not engaged
in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to
be . . . has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force
with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to
prevent death or great bodily injury to himself . . . ."); State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364,
370, 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of immunity under the [Protection of
Persons and Property] Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance
of the evidence standard, which this court reviews under an abuse of discretion
standard of review."); State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316, 768 S.E.2d 232, 237
(Ct. App. 2014) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is
based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without
evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 570, 647 S.E.2d 144,
166-67 (2007))); Curry, 406 S.C. at 371, 752 S.E.2d at 266 (finding the General
Assembly did not intend for the Protection of Persons and Property Act to be
construed to require a trial court to accept the accused's version of the underlying
facts); id. at 372, 752 S.E.2d at 266 ("Appellant's claim of self-defense presents a
quintessential jury question, which, most assuredly, is not a situation warranting
immunity from prosecution.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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