State v. Howze

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Howze

DecidedNovember 12, 2015

Docket2015-UP-515

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Howze (State v. Howze) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Howze, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

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.

Randy Howze, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000718

Appeal From York County Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-515 Submitted October 1, 2015 – Filed November 12, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tiffany Lorraine Butler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 402, SCRE ("All relevant evidence is admissible[.]"); Rule 401, SCRE (Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"); State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law." (quoting Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000))).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Randy Howze, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000718

Appeal From York County Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-515 Submitted October 1, 2015 – Filed November 12, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tiffany Lorraine Butler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 402, SCRE ("All relevant evidence is admissible[.]"); Rule 401, SCRE (Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"); State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law." (quoting Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000))).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Howze, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howze-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack