Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-342 - Wooten v. State

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

Danny Wooten, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


Appeal From Pickens County
Larry R. Patterson, Trial Judge
 Edward W. Miller, Post-Conviction Relief Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-342
Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 18, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Tricia A. Blanchette, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).[1]

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on petitioner’s Question I and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).  We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari as to petitioner’s Questions II and III. 

Petitioner's conviction and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 12-13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) ("The decision to grant or deny a motion for a mistrial is a matter within a trial court's sound discretion, and such a decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Gault, 375 S.C. 570, 574, 654 S.E.2d 98, 100 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[F]or an error of law to warrant reversal based on admission or exclusion of evidence, the appellant must prove both the error of the ruling and the resulting prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the verdict was influenced by the challenged evidence or the lack thereof."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A trial judge's decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 


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