State v. John W. Thomasson Sr.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. John W. Thomasson Sr.

DecidedFebruary 9, 2022

Docket2019-001517

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. John W. Thomasson Sr. (State v. John W. Thomasson Sr.) 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. John W. Thomasson Sr., (S.C. Ct. App. 2022).

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.

John W. Thomasson Sr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001517

Appeal From York County Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-044 Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed February 9, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John Wesley Thomasson appeals his conviction and five-year sentence for possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Thomasson argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomasson's motion for a continuance because he cited no facts showing he could have presented any other evidence had more time been granted. Therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Tanner, 299 S.C. 459, 462, 385 S.E.2d 832, 834 (1989) ("A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling on such motion will not be reversed without a clear showing of abuse of discretion."); State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 455, 459, 469 S.E.2d 49, 51-52 (1996) ("Where there is no showing that any other evidence on behalf of the appellant could have been produced, or that any other points could have been raised had more time been granted for the purpose of preparing the case for trial, the denial of a motion for continuance is not an abuse of discretion."); State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 409, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957) ("[R]eversals of refusal of continuance are about as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, 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.

John W. Thomasson Sr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001517

Appeal From York County Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-044 Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed February 9, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John Wesley Thomasson appeals his conviction and five-year sentence for possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Thomasson argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomasson's motion for a continuance because he cited no facts showing he could have presented any other evidence had more time been granted. Therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Tanner, 299 S.C. 459, 462, 385 S.E.2d 832, 834 (1989) ("A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling on such motion will not be reversed without a clear showing of abuse of discretion."); State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 455, 459, 469 S.E.2d 49, 51-52 (1996) ("Where there is no showing that any other evidence on behalf of the appellant could have been produced, or that any other points could have been raised had more time been granted for the purpose of preparing the case for trial, the denial of a motion for continuance is not an abuse of discretion."); State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 409, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957) ("[R]eversals of refusal of continuance are about as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. John W. Thomasson Sr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-john-w-thomasson-sr-scctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack