Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-592 - State v. Green

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.

Kendall Green, Appellant.


Appeal From Marlboro County
 Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-592
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 17, 2008


AFFIRMED


Deputy Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kendall Green was indicted for and convicted of murder, kidnapping, and grand larceny.  Green appeals, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to order the removal of his restraints during his trial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities:  Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005) (holding the use of physical restraints visible to the jury are prohibited absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a particular trial);  State v. Tucker, 320 S.C. 206, 209, 464 S.E.2d 105, 107 (1995) (providing that the trial judge is to balance the prejudicial effect of shackling with the considerations of courtroom decorum and security; whether a defendant is restrained during trial is within the trial judge’s discretion; and the trial judge is the best equipped to decide the extent to which security measures should be adopted to prevent disruption of the trial, harm to those in the courtroom, escape of the accused, and prevention of other crimes);  State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 500, 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) (holding an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review);  State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 296, 509 S.E.2d 476, 483 (1998) (holding where appellant failed to object to jury charge, issue was not preserved for consideration on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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