Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-539 - State v. McGee

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.

Shannon D. McGee, Appellant.


Appeal From Georgetown County
 Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-539
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 19, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan 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; Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Shannon D. McGee appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree criminal sexual conduct, second-degree assault with the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and lewd act upon a minor child.  On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the State's Brady v. Maryland violation.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Johnson, 376 S.C. 8, 11, 654 S.E.2d 835, 836 (2007) ("A trial judge has the discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial, and his decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.");  Riddle v. Ozmint, 369 S.C. 39, 44, 631 S.E.2d 70, 73 (2006) ("An individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that evidence [is]: (1) favorable to the accused; (2) in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 


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