State v. Byers

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 22, 2010
• Docket: 2010-UP-139
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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.

Jonathan Byers, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Cherokee County
 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-139
Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 22, 2010  

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, 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 Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jonathan Byers appeals his convictions for three counts of first-degree burglary, three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and armed robbery.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying Byers the right to self-representation:  State v. Fuller, 337 S.C. 236, 241, 523 S.E.2d 168, 170 (1999) ("If the request to proceed pro se is made after trial has begun, the grant or denial of the right to proceed pro se rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.").

2.  As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Byers's motion for a mistrial:  State v. Reeves, 301 S.C. 191, 194, 391 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1990) ("Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial."); State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 263-64, 468 S.E.2d 7, 11-12 (Ct. App. 1996) (finding when a defendant does not object to the sufficiency of the instruction or ask for additional curative instructions the error is deemed cured).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS and LOCKEMY concur.

---

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