State v. Middleton

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Middleton

DecidedMay 27, 2010

Docket2010-UP-294

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Middleton (State v. Middleton) 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. Middleton, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

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.

Octavia Middleton, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-294
Submitted May 3, 2010 Filed May 27, 2010

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Octavia Middleton appeals his convictions of assault with intent to kill, three counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, five counts of armed robbery, two counts of first-degree burglary, and murder, for which he received an aggregate fifty-year sentence. Middleton argues the trial court erred in admitting photographs of scratches on his arms and in failing to direct a verdict in his favor. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to the admission of photographs: State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 310-11, 513 S.E.2d 606, 610 (1999) (affirming the admission of photographs of defendant's scratched back and arms as relevant and probative evidence when defendant's accomplice testified defendant fled the murder scene by running through a wooded area).

2. As to the directed verdict motion: State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 217, 499 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1998) (holding preservation requires the objection to be contemporaneous); McGee v. Bruce Hosp. Sys., 321 S.C. 340, 347, 468 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1996) (finding an issue cannot be raised for the first time in a new trial motion).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, 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.

Octavia Middleton, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-294
Submitted May 3, 2010 Filed May 27, 2010

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Octavia Middleton appeals his convictions of assault with intent to kill, three counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, five counts of armed robbery, two counts of first-degree burglary, and murder, for which he received an aggregate fifty-year sentence. Middleton argues the trial court erred in admitting photographs of scratches on his arms and in failing to direct a verdict in his favor. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to the admission of photographs: State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 310-11, 513 S.E.2d 606, 610 (1999) (affirming the admission of photographs of defendant's scratched back and arms as relevant and probative evidence when defendant's accomplice testified defendant fled the murder scene by running through a wooded area).

2. As to the directed verdict motion: State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 217, 499 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1998) (holding preservation requires the objection to be contemporaneous); McGee v. Bruce Hosp. Sys., 321 S.C. 340, 347, 468 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1996) (finding an issue cannot be raised for the first time in a new trial motion).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Middleton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-middleton-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack