Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-589 - The State v. Brandon Mazyck

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.

Brandon C. Mazyck, Appellant.


Appeal From Berkeley County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-589
Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed December 14, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brandon C. Mazyck appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN).  On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion for a continuance; and (2) denying his motion for a mistrial.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance: State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 455, 459, 469 S.E.2d 49, 51-52 (1996) ("Where there is no showing that any other evidence on behalf of the appellant could have been produced, or that any other points could have been raised had more time been granted for the purpose of preparing the case for trial, the denial of a motion for continuance is not an abuse of discretion."). 

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial: State v. King, 334 S.C. 504, 510, 514 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1999) (stating to preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be timely made, which usually requires it be made at the earliest possible opportunity).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 


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