Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-259 - State v. Briscoe

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,

v.

Steven C. Briscoe, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-259
Submitted April 1, 2008 – Filed May 14, 2008 


AFFIRMED


Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Steven Briscoe appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion to quash the jury pursuant to his Batson[1] motion.  Briscoe asserts the State discriminated against both Native Americans and African-Americans in its use of peremptory challenges.  We find no error in the circuit court’s treatment of Briscoe’s Batson motion and affirm the judgment and conviction of the circuit court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); State v. Cochran, 369 S.C. 308, 631 S.E.2d 294 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding in an appeal from the grant or denial of a Batson motion, appellate courts give deference to the findings of the trial court and apply a clearly erroneous standard); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (stating the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation); State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 470 S.E.2d 366 (1996) (adopting the procedures set forth in Purkett).

Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is

AFFIRMED[2]

HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.


[1]  Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

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