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,
Antonio M. Williams, Appellant.
Appeal From Pickens County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-285
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 20, 2010
J. Falkner Wilkes and Richard Harold Warder, both of Greenville, 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 Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Antonio M. Williams appeals his convictions for distribution of cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base within proximity of a school, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to instruct the jury he could not be convicted of both crimes; and (2) failing to consider his prior convictions as a single offense under the sentence enhancement statute. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the requested jury instruction: State v. Brown, 319 S.C. 400, 408, 461 S.E.2d 828, 832 (Ct. App. 1995) (emphasizing "that there is no prohibition against the contemporaneous prosecution by the State for both possession with intent to distribute and distribution of crack cocaine and the related school charges where, like this case, they arise out of the same conduct"); Riley v. S.C., 82 F.Supp.2d 474, 478-79 (D.S.C. 2000) (citing Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932), and Brown, 319 S.C. at 408, 461 S.E.2d at 832, and finding our state legislature intended for the possession within proximity of a school statute to be a separate statute providing cumulative punishment in conjunction with the punishment proscribed by the statute prohibiting possession of narcotics).
2. As to whether the trial court erred in calculating his convictions for sentence enhancement purposes: State v. Boyd, 288 S.C. 206, 210, 341 S.E.2d 144, 146 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding "where the violations are unrelated to one another and do not arise out of a single incident . . . no prohibition of counting for sentencing purposes each conviction separately" exists).
HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.