State v. McGee

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.

Shannon D.
McGee, Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

 Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-539

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 19, 2009   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior
Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; Solicitor J.
Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Shannon D. McGee appeals his convictions
and sentences for second-degree criminal sexual conduct, second-degree assault
with the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and lewd act
upon a minor child.  On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying his
motion for a new trial based on the State's Brady v. Maryland violation.  We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Johnson, 376 S.C. 8, 11, 654 S.E.2d 835, 836 (2007) ("A trial judge has
the discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial, and his decision will
not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.");  Riddle v.
Ozmint, 369 S.C. 39, 44, 631 S.E.2d 70, 73 (2006) ("An individual
asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that evidence [is]: (1)
favorable to the accused; (2) in the possession of or known by the prosecution;
(3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or
innocence or was impeaching.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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