State v. Haynesworth

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.

Bilal Sincere Haynesworth, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001177

Appeal From Lexington County Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-119 Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed March 2, 2016

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Nesbitt, 411 S.C. 194, 199, 768 S.E.2d 67, 70 (2015) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." (quoting State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 586, 713 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2011))); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318, 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct. App. 2003) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole . . . ."); State v. Rye, 375 S.C. 119, 123, 651 S.E.2d 321, 323 (2007) ("A trial court's decision regarding jury charges will not be reversed where the charges, as a whole, properly charged the law to be applied.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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