THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Jerome Myers, Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
James R. Barber, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-088
Heard January 12, 2005 – Filed February 7, 2005
Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellant, Jerome Myers, was indicted for and convicted of kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. The trial judge sentenced Myers to concurrent terms of twelve years imprisonment on each conviction, consecutive to revocation of three years of his probation. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 21, 596 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (holding the admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and his ruling will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice); State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (holding in a criminal case the appellate court is bound by the trial court’s preliminary factual findings in determining the admissibility of certain evidence unless the findings are clearly erroneous, and its review extends only to determining whether the trial judge abused his discretion); State v. Boiter, 302 S.C. 381, 383-84, 396 S.E.2d 364, 365 (1990) (holding in determining admissibility of evidence of a victim’s prior accusation, the trial judge should (1) determine whether such accusation was false, (2) if the prior allegation was false, consider remoteness in time of the prior accusation to the present accusation and, (3) consider the factual similarity between the prior and present allegations to determine relevancy).
HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.