State v. Depriest

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 21, 2010
• Docket: 2010-UP-246
• Status: Unpublished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.

James Garfield Depriest, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-246
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 21, 2010

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Garfield Depriest was convicted of one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree, one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree, and two counts of lewd act.  He received sentences of thirty years, twenty years, fifteen years, and fifteen years, respectively.  He appeals, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to sever the charges because they involved two victims, and he contends the trial was unduly prejudicial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Rice, 368 S.C. 610, 614, 629 S.E.2d 393, 395 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Where the offenses charged in separate indictments are of the same general nature involving connected transactions closely related in kind, place and character, the trial judge has the power, in his discretion, to order the indictments tried together if the defendant's substantive rights would not be prejudiced."); Id. at 615, 629 S.E.2d at 395 (providing charges may be tried together where they (1) arise out of a single chain of circumstances, (2) are proved by the same evidence, (3) are of the same general nature, and (4) when no real right of the defendant has been prejudiced); State v. Grace, 350 S.C. 19, 23, 564 S.E.2d 331, 333 (Ct. App. 2002) ("The circuit court has wide discretion when deciding whether to consolidate charges for trial and its decision will only be overturned when an abuse of discretion has occurred."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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