State v. Randolph Ashford

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.

Randolph Ashford, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001463

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-402
Submitted November 1, 2025 – Filed December 10, 2025

AFFIRMED

Randolph Ashford, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mark Reynolds
Farthing, and Solicitor Byron E. Gipson, all of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Randolph Ashford appeals his convictions for first-degree
burglary, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of assault with intent to kill, and
three counts of carjacking, along with his aggregate sentence of forty years'
imprisonment. On appeal, Ashford argues the trial court abused its discretion by
denying his motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence under Rule
29(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ashford's motion for
a new trial because the motion was not timely and Ashford failed to demonstrate
any of the factors supporting granting the motion. See State v. Harris, 391 S.C.
539, 544-45, 706 S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A motion for a new trial based
on after-discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
[court]." (quoting State v. Irvin, 270 S.C. 539, 545, 243 S.E.2d 195, 197 (1978)));
id. ("'The granting of a new trial because of after-discovered evidence is not
favored,' and [appellate courts] will affirm the trial court's denial of such a motion
unless the trial court abused its discretion." (quoting Irvin, 270 S.C. at 545, 243
S.E.2d at 197-98)); Rule 29(b), SCRCrimP ("A motion for a new trial based on
after-discovered evidence must be made within one (1) year after the date of actual
discovery of the evidence by the defendant or after the date when the evidence
could have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence."); State v.
Haulcomb, 260 S.C. 260, 270, 195 S.E.2d 601, 606 (1973) ("[A]fter-discovered
evidence refers to evidence of facts existing at [the] time of trial of which [the]
aggrieved party was excusably ignorant."); State v. Spann, 334 S.C. 618, 619-20,
513 S.E.2d 98, 99 (1999) (explaining a defendant moving for a new trial on the
basis of after-discovered evidence must show the evidence (1) would probably
change the result if a new trial were granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial,
(3) could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence,
(4) is material, and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching).

AFFIRMED.2

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

1
On November 17, 2025, Ashford filed a "motion to allow filing of a supplemental
record on appeal." We grant Ashford’s motion and have considered the
supplemental record on appeal.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.