Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-562 - State v. Watrus

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.

Gary Lee Watrus, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-562
Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed December 23, 2010


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, 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 William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Gary Lee Watrus pled guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of seven years and five years' probation.  On appeal, Watrus argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.[1]  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 29(b), SCRCrimP ("A motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence must be made within a reasonable period of time after the discovery of the evidence. . . . "); State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166, 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) ("The decision whether to grant a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and [the appellate court] will not disturb the trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 157-58, 508 S.E.2d 857, 869 (1998) ("To prevail on a motion for a new trial based on after discovered evidence, a defendant must show [:] (1) the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (3) the evidence could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching."). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., SHORT and WILLIAMS , JJ. concur


[1] We decline to address Watrus's motion for a reduction in sentence because Watrus abandoned the issue on appeal. See Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (noting ordinarily the appellate courts will not review any issue not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal); see also State v. Garner, 389 S.C. 61, 67, 697 S.E.2d 615, 618 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding an argument is abandoned on appeal when conclusory and without supporting authority). 

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