State v. Huggins

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Huggins

DecidedJuly 3, 2019

Docket2019-UP-247

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Huggins (State v. Huggins) 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. Huggins, (S.C. Ct. App. 2019).

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.

Jamar Antonio Huggins, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001488

Appeal From Horry County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-247 Submitted May 1, 2019 – Filed July 3, 2019

AFFIRMED

Tricia A. Blanchette, of Law Office of Tricia A. Blanchette, LLC, of Leesville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166, 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) ("The decision whether to grant a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the [circuit] court, and [an appellate court] will not disturb the [circuit] court's decision absent an abuse of discretion."); id. at 167, 672 S.E.2d at 565 ("The deferential standard of review constrains [an appellate court] to affirm the [circuit] court if reasonably supported by the evidence."); id. ("On review, [an appellate court] may not make [its] own findings of fact."); State v. Harris, 391 S.C. 539, 545, 706 S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In order to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence, the movant must show the evidence (1) is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material to the issue; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, 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.

Jamar Antonio Huggins, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001488

Appeal From Horry County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-247 Submitted May 1, 2019 – Filed July 3, 2019

AFFIRMED

Tricia A. Blanchette, of Law Office of Tricia A. Blanchette, LLC, of Leesville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166, 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) ("The decision whether to grant a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the [circuit] court, and [an appellate court] will not disturb the [circuit] court's decision absent an abuse of discretion."); id. at 167, 672 S.E.2d at 565 ("The deferential standard of review constrains [an appellate court] to affirm the [circuit] court if reasonably supported by the evidence."); id. ("On review, [an appellate court] may not make [its] own findings of fact."); State v. Harris, 391 S.C. 539, 545, 706 S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In order to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence, the movant must show the evidence (1) is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material to the issue; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Huggins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-huggins-scctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack