Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-275 - State v. Jenrette, Kristal

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.

Kristal Cordelia Jenrette, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-275
Submitted May 5, 2010 – Filed May 19, 2010


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, and Assistant Attorney General Michelle Parsons Kelley, all of Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kristal Cordelia Jenrette appeals her convictions for two counts of trafficking in crack cocaine in an amount more than ten grams but less than twenty-eight.  On appeal, Jenrette contends the trial court erred in (1) denying her motion for a trial severance and (2) denying her motion for a directed verdict. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Jenrette's motion for a trial severance: State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 164, 478 S.E.2d 260, 265 (1996) (stating a motion for severance is addressed to the trial court and should not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown); State v. Simmons, 352 S.C. 342, 350, 573 S.E.2d 856, 860 (Ct. App. 2002) ("Where the offenses charged in separate indictments are of the same general nature involving connected transactions closely related in kind, place and character, the trial judge has the power, in his discretion, to order the indictments tried together if the defendant's substantive rights would not be prejudiced.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Jenrette's motion for a directed verdict: State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In reviewing a denial of directed verdict, issues not raised to the trial court in support of the directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review."); see also State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) ("A party cannot argue one ground for a directed verdict in trial and then an alternative ground on appeal."). 

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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