State v. Morton

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.

Jason Scott Morton, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002641

Appeal From Chester County Brian M. Gibbons, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-372 Submitted September 1, 2018 – Filed October 10, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 324, 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) ("The trial court has broad discretion when dealing with the propriety of the [State]'s argument . . . ."); id. ("The trial court's discretion will not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law that prejudices the defendant."); id. at 324, 468 S.E.2d at 624-25 ("On appeal, the appellate court will view the alleged impropriety of the [State]'s argument in the context of the entire record. The appellant has the burden of proving [he] did not receive a fair trial because of the alleged improper argument."); Humphries v. State, 351 S.C. 362, 373, 570 S.E.2d 160, 166 (2002) ("The relevant question is whether the [State]'s comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."); State v. Hornsby, 326 S.C. 121, 129, 484 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1997) ("A denial of due process occurs when a defendant in a criminal trial is denied the fundamental fairness essential to the concept of justice.").

AFFIRMED.1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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