State v. Sparkman

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Sparkman

DecidedJuly 8, 2020

Docket2018-000172

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Sparkman (State v. Sparkman) 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. Sparkman, (S.C. Ct. App. 2020).

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.

Cory Lamont Sparkman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000172

Appeal From Charleston County Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-212 Submitted June 1, 2020 – Filed July 8, 2020

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Sherrie Butterbaugh, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Cory Lamont Sparkman appeals from his convictions for two counts of murder and one count of armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in (1) denying his request for resentencing where he received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and (2) denying him an opportunity to present or proffer evidence regarding the parole board's decision- making process. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Finley, 427 S.C. 419, 427-28, 831 S.E.2d 158, 162-63 (2019) (holding that because Finley's life sentence afforded him parole eligibility after the service of 30 years' imprisonment, any potential Eighth Amendment violation was cured, and the circuit court did not err in denying Finley's motion for resentencing); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 91, 708 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." (quoting Pagan, 369 S.C. at 208, 631 S.E.2d at 265)).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, 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.

Cory Lamont Sparkman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000172

Appeal From Charleston County Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-212 Submitted June 1, 2020 – Filed July 8, 2020

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Sherrie Butterbaugh, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Cory Lamont Sparkman appeals from his convictions for two counts of murder and one count of armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in (1) denying his request for resentencing where he received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and (2) denying him an opportunity to present or proffer evidence regarding the parole board's decision- making process. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Finley, 427 S.C. 419, 427-28, 831 S.E.2d 158, 162-63 (2019) (holding that because Finley's life sentence afforded him parole eligibility after the service of 30 years' imprisonment, any potential Eighth Amendment violation was cured, and the circuit court did not err in denying Finley's motion for resentencing); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 91, 708 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." (quoting Pagan, 369 S.C. at 208, 631 S.E.2d at 265)).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, 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. Sparkman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sparkman-scctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack