Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-080 - The State v. Russell Sims

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.

Russell Lee Sims, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-080
Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed February 2, 2010
Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled March 18, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Senior Appellate Defender 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. Zelanka, and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Russell Lee Sims appeals his convictions for murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, first degree burglary, two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and four counts of pointing and presenting a firearm at a person.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Cottrell, 376 S.C. 260, 262, 657 S.E.2d 451, 452 (2008) (stating the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, and the instruction need not be given when no evidence supports the lesser included offense); State v. Walker, 324 S.C. 257, 260, 478 S.E.2d 280, 281 (1996) (indicating that to warrant a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter, in addition to legal provocation, evidence must also demonstrate the defendant was overcome by a sudden heat of passion that would render a reasonable person incapable of cool reflection and produce an uncontrollable impulse to do violence).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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