Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-373 - State v. Johnson

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.

Donald L. Johnson, Appellant.


Appeal From Union County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-373
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 21, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey 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 Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Donald L. Johnson appeals his convictions for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a school, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance and request to charge the jury on entrapment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to the motion for a continuance:  State v. McMillian, 349 S.C. 17, 21, 561 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2002) (stating the denial of a motion for a continuance will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion and reversals of refusals of continuances are about as "rare as the proverbial hens' teeth"); 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."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 457, 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding defendant waived his constitutional right to be present at trial after he was notified of his right to attend and instructed his failure to appear would result in being tried in his absence, as well as noting defendant's bond form sufficiently warned him of being tried in his absence for failing to appear).

2.  As to the jury charge:  State v. Johnson, 295 S.C. 215, 217, 367 S.E.2d 700, 701 (1988) ("One pleading entrapment has the burden of showing that he was induced, tricked or incited to commit a crime, which he would not otherwise have committed.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 


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