State v. John W. Thomasson Sr.

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.

John W. Thomasson Sr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001517

Appeal From York County
Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-044
Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed February 9, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John Wesley Thomasson appeals his conviction and five-year
sentence for possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Thomasson argues the
trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance.
We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomasson's motion
for a continuance because he cited no facts showing he could have presented any
other evidence had more time been granted. Therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Tanner, 299 S.C. 459, 462,
385 S.E.2d 832, 834 (1989) ("A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court and its ruling on such motion will not be reversed
without a clear showing of abuse of discretion."); State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 455,
459, 469 S.E.2d 49, 51-52 (1996) ("Where there is no showing that any other
evidence on behalf of the appellant could have been produced, or that any other
points could have been raised had more time been granted for the purpose of
preparing the case for trial, the denial of a motion for continuance is not an abuse
of discretion."); State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 409, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957)
("[R]eversals of refusal of continuance are about as rare as the proverbial hens'
teeth.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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