State v. Seabrook

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 16, 2010
• Docket: 2010-UP-537
• Status: Unpublished

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.

Decoven Fletcher Seabrook, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-537
Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed December 16, 2010

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Decoven Fletcher Seabrook appeals his conviction of armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in considering his decision to exercise his right to a jury trial in sentencing and in denying his motion for a continuance.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred in sentencing: Brooks v. State, 325 S.C. 269, 271, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997) ("A trial judge is allowed broad discretion in sentencing within the statutory limits."); State v. Conally, 227 S.C. 507, 510, 88 S.E.2d 591, 592 (1955) (holding an appellate court "has no jurisdiction to disturb, because of alleged excessiveness, a sentence which is within the limits prescribed by statute, unless: (a) the statute itself violates the constitutional injunction . . . against cruel and unusual punishment, or (b) the sentence is the result of partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Seabrook's motion for a continuance: State v. Colden, 372 S.C. 428, 435, 641 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 2007) (finding "[t]he granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed [on appeal] absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion"); id. at 435, 641 S.E.2d at 917 (finding "[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law"). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

---

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