State v. Williamson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Williamson

DecidedFebruary 22, 2012

Docket2012-UP-089

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Williamson (State v. Williamson) 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. Williamson, (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).

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.

Anthony Tyrone Williamson, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County
Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-089
Submitted February 1, 2012 Filed February 22, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this consolidated appeal, Anthony Tyrone Williamson appeals his convictions for two counts of trafficking in cocaine base and possession of cocaine base within a proximity of a school or park. Williamson argues the trial court erred in: (1) proceeding with his first trial although he was not represented by counsel; (2) proceeding with his first trial in absentia without meaningfully informing him his trial would be conducted despite his absence; and (3) denying his motion for a mistrial. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Williamson's issues concerning his right to counsel and his being tried in absentia: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232, 355 S.E.2d 861, 862 (1987) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by [Rule 16, SCRCrimP], a defendant or his attorney must object at the first opportunity to do so.").

2. As to Williamson's motion for a mistrial: State v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63, 530 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000) (stating a defendant must show both error and prejudice resulting from such error to receive a mistrial); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 447-48, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Insubstantial errors that do not impact the result of a case do not warrant a mistrial when guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, J.J., 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.

Anthony Tyrone Williamson, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County
Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-089
Submitted February 1, 2012 Filed February 22, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this consolidated appeal, Anthony Tyrone Williamson appeals his convictions for two counts of trafficking in cocaine base and possession of cocaine base within a proximity of a school or park. Williamson argues the trial court erred in: (1) proceeding with his first trial although he was not represented by counsel; (2) proceeding with his first trial in absentia without meaningfully informing him his trial would be conducted despite his absence; and (3) denying his motion for a mistrial. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Williamson's issues concerning his right to counsel and his being tried in absentia: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232, 355 S.E.2d 861, 862 (1987) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by [Rule 16, SCRCrimP], a defendant or his attorney must object at the first opportunity to do so.").

2. As to Williamson's motion for a mistrial: State v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63, 530 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000) (stating a defendant must show both error and prejudice resulting from such error to receive a mistrial); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 447-48, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Insubstantial errors that do not impact the result of a case do not warrant a mistrial when guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, J.J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Williamson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williamson-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack